Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators

Tools For Evaluating The Quality of Transport Services and Facilities

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated 18 August 2008


This chapter describes level-of-service (LOS) rating systems suitable for evaluating the quality of various transport modes from a users perspective. This helps create a more neutral planning decisions that involve tradeoffs between different transport modes.

 

 

Description

Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators are rating systems used to evaluate various transportation modes and impacts. Level of Service (also called Quality of Service or Service Quality) refers to the speed, convenience, comfort and security of transportation facilities and services as experienced by users. Level-Of-Service (LOS) ratings, typically from A (best) to F (worst), are widely used in transport Planning to evaluate problems and potential solutions. Because they are easy to understand (they are similar to the schools grades), Level-Of-Service rating often influence transport planning decisions. Such ratings systems can be used identify problems, establish performance standards and targets, evaluate potential solutions, compare locations, and track trends.

 

Current transport planning focuses primarily on roadway LOS ratings that only reflect motor vehicle traffic speed and delay (Table 1). There are generally no LOS ratings for other modes or problems. This tends to favor highway expansion over other types of transportation improvements, contributing to Automobile Dependency.

 

Table 1            Roadway Level-Of-Service (LOS) Ratings (Wikipedia)

LOS

Description

Speed

(mph)

Flow (veh./hour/lane)

Density

(veh./mile)

A

Traffic flows at or above the posted speed limit and all motorists have complete mobility between lanes.

Over 60

Under 700

Under 12

B

Slightly congested, with some impingement of maneuverability. Two motorists might be forced to drive side by side, limiting lane changes.

57-60

700-1,100

12-20

C

Ability to pass or change lanes is not assured. Most experienced drivers are comfortable, and posted speed is maintained, but roads are close to capacity. This is often the target LOS for urban highways.

54-57

1,100-1,550

20-30

D

Typical of an urban highway during commuting hours. Speeds are somewhat reduced, motorists are hemmed in by other cars and trucks.

46-54

1,550-1,850

30-42

E

Flow becomes irregular and speed varies rapidly, but rarely reaches the posted limit. On highways this is consistent with a road over its designed capacity.

30-46

1,850-2,000

42-67

F

Flow is forced; every vehicle moves in lockstep with the vehicle in front of it, with frequent drops in speed to nearly zero mph. A road for which the travel time cannot be predicted.

Under 30

Unstable

67-Maximum

This table summarizes roadway Level of Service (LOS) rating. These only account for motor vehicle traffic speeds and congestion delay. Other impacts and modes are often ignored.

 

 

Excessive emphasis on roadway Level-of-service reflects a common planning problem: bias toward easy-to-measure impacts at the expense of more-difficult-to-measure impacts. For example, transportation engineers often produce maps showing roadway links and intersections considered to have excess traffic congestion (Level-of-Service rating D or worse), information that is used to define transportation problems and prioritize transportation system improvements, resulting in resources being directed at highway expansion. This type of analysis ignores:

 

  • Other transportation problems besides traffic congestion, such as parking congestion, traffic accidents, increased consumer costs from automobile-dependent transportation systems, inadequate mobility for non-drivers, excessive energy consumption, pollution emissions and inadequate physical fitness and health.

 

  • The tendency of increased vehicle traffic volumes and speeds to increase problems such as traffic accidents, pollution emissions and sprawl.

 

  • Negative impacts that wider roads and increased vehicle traffic speeds tend to have on Walking and Cycling travel (and therefore public transit travel, since most transit trips include walking links).

 

 

Some jurisdictions codify this bias toward automobile-oriented improvements with concurrency requirements and development fees, which imposes restrictions and fees on new development that increases local traffic congestion as measured by roadway LOS ratings. This tends to discourage infill development and encourage sprawl (CUTR, 2006 and 2008). Application of Multi-Modal Level-Of-Service standards supports infill development and Smart Growth by allowing roadway LOS ratings to decline provided that LOS ratings for other modes improve, and by allowing development fees to finance Nonmotorized and Public Transit improvements rather than just roadway expansion.

 

The development and use of Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators is consistent with current trends toward more Comprehensive and balanced transport planning that considers diverse modes and impacts (SFDPH, 2007). Such indicators can help respond to users’ preferences and expand the range of solutions that can be considered in transport planning. For example, travelers may sometimes be willing to accept lower speeds for increased convenience and comfort, and improvements to other modes besides roadway. Multi-Modal LOS Indicators can help identify if a particular planning decision has undesirable indirect effects, such as when road or parking facility expansion degrades walking and cycling conditions. It is particularly important for TDM Evaluation, because it considers a broader range of options and impacts, and reflects factors that influence traveler behavior.

 

Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators can be used for travel demand modeling. An improvement in a mode’s Level-of-Service rating reflects an increase in its speed, convenience and comfort, which, all else being equal, should increase demand for that mode. The rating factors can be quantified to measure changes in service quality.

 

Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators can be used to establish performance standards and targets. For example, a strategic transportation plan include a target that all walking and cycling facilities should have at least a C Level-of-Service rating, and that the average value of public transit Level-of-Service should increase from D to C within two years, and should reach LOS B within five years. This establishes a framework for identifying problems and prioritizing transportation system improvements.

 

Comprehensive Level-of-Service Indicators are particularly important for improving public transit and walking transport, because their travel conditions are directly affected by public planning decisions, as indicated in Table 2. For example, motorists supply their own parking garages and vehicles and so directly control comfort features such as seating quality, temperature control and refreshment availability (cupholders). In contrast, public transit travelers publicly supplied sidewalks and paths, stops and stations, park-&-ride facilities, and vehicles. It is not generally possible for an individual traveler to purchase improved walking conditions, nicer stops and stations, higher transit service speeds, or a nicer bus or train with additional convenience and comfort features (such as cupholders); improving these facilities and services requires public planning that responds to user needs and preferences. For example, some travelers might shift from driving to public transit if it had better service quality. Comprehensive Level-of-Service Indicators are the mechanism used to identify and evaluate such consumer demands in the planning process.

 

Table 2            Provision of Transportation System Components

Providers

Automobile

Public Transit

Walking & Cycling

Private

Residential garage

Vehicle

 

Shoes and bikes

 

Public

Roads

Destination parking

Sidewalks and paths

Stops and stations

Park-&-Ride facilities

Vehicle (bus or train)

Sidewalks and paths

Road crossing conditions

Automobile users provide their own garage and vehicles and so have greater direct control over convenience and comfort features. Public transit users depend much more on publicly supplied facilities and services and so are more affected by the methods use to evaluate service quality.

 

 

Multi-modal LOS Indicators can help guide planning decisions to favor efficient modes and trips for transport system Prioritization for a Green Transportation Hierarchy. This essentially reverses priorities of transport planning which relies on roadway Level-of-Service ratings to allocate resources to increase automobile traffic volume and speed, with little consideration of other modes and problems.

 

Green Transportation Hierarchy (TA, 2001)

1.     Pedestrians

2.     Bicycles

3.     Public Transportation

4.     Service and Freight Vehicles

5.     Taxis

6.     Multiple Occupant Vehicles

7.     Single Occupant Vehicles

The Green Transportation Hierarchy favors more efficient (in terms of space, energy and other costs) modes.

 

 

Examples of Multi-Modal Level-Of-Service Standards

This section describes examples of Level-Of-Service standards developed for various modes. The Florida Department of Transportation’s “Quality/Level of Service Handbook” (FDOT, 2002) provides the most comprehensive information on Multi-Modal LOS standards. The Transportation Research Board’s “Highway Capacity Manual” (TRB, 2000) provides more information on walking, cycling and automobile transportation LOS ratings.  The “Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual” (Kittelson, 2003) provides information on public transportation LOS standards.

 

Non-Motorized (Walking and Cycling) Conditions and Facilities

Table 3 lists factors to consider when evaluating Walking and Cycling Facilities such as sidewalks, paths and trails (together called nonmotorized networks). Several walking and cycling Level-Of-Service rating systems have been developed. Some are more complete than others. For example, some focus on walkway conditions and give little consideration to roadway crossings, while others focus on roadway crossing conditions and give little consideration to walkways.

 

Table 3            Nonmotorized Level-Of-Service Rating Factors

Feature

Definition

Indicators

Network continuity

Whether sidewalks and paths exist, and connect throughout an area.

·    Portion of streets with nonmotorized facilities.

·    Length of path per capita.

·    Network connectivity and density (kilometers of sidewalks and paths per square kilometer).

Network quality

Whether sidewalks and paths are properly designed and maintained.

·    Sidewalk and path functional width.

·    Portion of sidewalks and paths that meet current design standards.

·    Portion of sidewalks and paths in good repair.

Road crossing

Safety and speed of road crossings

·    Road crossing widths.

·    Motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds.

·    Average pedestrian crossing time.

·    Quantity and quality of crosswalks, signals and crossing guards.

Traffic protection

Separation of nonmotorized traffic from motorized traffic, particularly high traffic volumes and speeds.

·    Distance between traffic lanes and sidewalks or paths.

·    Presence of physical separators, such as trees and bollards.

·    Speed control.

Congestion and user conflicts

Whether sidewalks and paths are crowded or experience other conflicts.

·    Functional width of sidewalk and paths.

·    Peak-period density (people per square meter)

·    Clearance from hazards, such as street furniture and performers within the right-of-way.

·    Number of reported conflicts among users.

·    Facility management to minimize user conflicts.

Topography

Presence of steep inclines.

·    Portion of sidewalks and paths with steep inclines.

Sense of Security

Perceived threats of accidents, assault, theft or abuse.

·    Reported security incidents.

·    Quality of visibility and lighting.

Wayfinding

Guidance for navigating within the station and to nearby destinations.

·    Availability and quality of signs, maps and visitor information services.

Weather protection

User protected from sun and rain.

·    Presence of shade trees and awnings.

Cleanliness

Cleanliness of facilities and nearby areas.

·    Litter, particularly potentially dangerous objects.

·    Graffiti on facilities and nearby areas.

·    Effectiveness of sidewalk and path cleaning programs.

Attractiveness

The attractiveness of the facility, nearby areas and destinations.

·    Quality of facility design.

·    Quality of nearby buildings and landscaping.

·    Area Livability (environmental and social quality of an area).

·    Community cohesion (quantity and quality of positive interactions among people in an area).

·    Number of parks and recreational areas accessible by nonmotorized facilities.

Marketing

Effectiveness of efforts to encourage nonmotorized transportation.

·    Quality of nonmotorized education and promotion programs.

·    Nonmotorized transport included in Commute Trip Reduction programs.

This table summarizes various factors to consider when evaluating walking and cycling conditions.

 

 

Below are specific examples of nonmotorized Level-Of-Service indicators.

 

  • The Walkability Checklist: How Walkable Is Your Community, by Partnership for a Walkable America and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.walkableamerica.org/checklist-walkability.pdf), provides an easy-to-use form for evaluating neighborhood walkability.

 

  • The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.bicyclinginfo.org) produced a community bikeability checklist (www.walkinginfo.org/cps/checklist.htm). It includes ratings for road and off-road facilities, driver behavior, cyclist behavior, and barriers, and identifies ways to improve bicycling conditions.

 

  • Dixon (1996) describes LOS ratings for walking and cycling conditions, using point systems in tables 4 and 5. Table 6 converts these points into Level-Of-Service grades.

 

Table 4            Pedestrian Level-of-Service (Dixon, 1996)

 

Pedestrian

Points

Facility

(Max. value = 10)

Not continuous or non-existent

Continuous on one side

Continuous on both sides

Min. 1.53 m (5’) wide & barrier free

Sidewalk width >1.53 (5’)

Off-street/parallel alternative facility

0

4

6

2

1

1

Conflicts

(Max. value = 10)

Driveways & sidestreets

Ped. Signal delay 40 sec. or less

Reduced turn conflict implementation

Crossing width 18.3 m (60’) or less

Posted speed

Medians present

1

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

1

Amenities

(Max. value = 2)

Buffer not less than 1m (3’5”)

Benches or pedestrian scale lighting

Shade trees

1

0.5

0.5

Motor Vehicle LOS

(Max. value = 2)

LOS = E, F, or 6+ travel lanes

LOS = D, & < 6 travel lanes

LOS = A, B, C, & < 6 travel lanes

0

1

2

Maintenance

(Max. value = 2)

Major or frequent problems

Minor or infrequent problems

No problems

-1

0

2

TDM/Multi Modal

(Max. value = 1)

No support

Support exists

0

1

 

 

Table 5            Bicycle Level-of-Service (Dixon, 1996)

 

Bicycle

Points

Facility

(Max. value = 10)

Outside lane 3.66 m (12’)

Outside lane 3.66-4.27m (12-14’)

Outside lane >4.27m (14’)

Off-street/parallel alternative facility

0

5

6

4

Conflicts

(Max. value = 10)

Driveways & sidestreets

Barrier free

No on-street parking

Medians present

Unrestricted sight distance

Intersection Implementation

1

0.5

1

0.5

0.5

0.5

Speed Differential

(Max. value = 4)

>48 KPH (>30 MPH)

40-48 KPH (25-30 MPH)

24-30 KPH (15-20 MPH)

0

1

2

Motor Vehicle LOS

(Max. value = 2)

LOS = E, F, or 6+ travel lanes

LOS = D, & < 6 travel lanes

LOS = A, B, C, & < 6 travel lanes

0

1

2

Maintenance

(Max. value = 2)

Major or frequent problems

Minor or infrequent problems

No problems

-1

0

2

TDM/Multi Modal

(Max. value = 1)

No support

Support exists

0

1

 

 

Table 6            Level of Service Ratings

LOS Rating

Points

A

>17

B

>14-17