evaluation of the multimodal level of service (LOS) analysis · BACKGROUND •HCM 2010 - Changes to...

B A S E D O N T H E H I G H W A Y C A P A C I T Y M A N U A L ( H C M 2 0 1 0 ) U R B A N S T R E E T L E V E L O F S E R V I C E ( L O S )

A N A L Y S I S M E T H O D O L O G I E S

EVALUATION OF THE MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS

AGENDA

• Goals

• Background

• 2010 HCM Methodology Evaluation

• Alternative Multimodal LOS Models

GOALS

• Assess the quality of various multimodal

level-of-service (MMLOS) evaluation tools to

simply and reliably provide results that are

meaningful to decision makers

• Improve confidence in the quality of the

MMLOS tools used to assess multimodal

facilities and projects

BACKGROUND

• 2000 HCM - pedestrian and bicycle modes were

limited by a lack of available research

• No direct accounting for:

• On-street parking

• Driveway density/access control

• Lane add/drop near intersections

• Impact of grades between intersections

• Midblock capacity constraints

• Medians/TWLT lanes

• Unusual volume conditions, Queues

• Cross-traffic interference.

BACKGROUND

• HCM 2010 approach: MMLOS

• HCM 2010 sources

• NCHRP Report 616- summarized the research

efforts of NCHRP Project 3‐70

• Highway Capacity Manual

• Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual

• Florida’s Quality/Level of Service Handbook

BACKGROUND

• The HCM 2010 provides a common LOS

scoring system for the pedestrian, bicycle,

and transit modes.

• LOS model incorporates research on

bicyclists’ and pedestrians’ perceptions.

• Provides a new definition of an urban street

segment and combines link and intersection

scores into a single LOS.

BACKGROUND

• HCM 2010 - Changes to Pedestrian Methodology

• Largely adopts the recommendations of NCHRP Report 616.

• Link LOS is based on the FDOT Q/LOS methodology.

• Differs from the previous HCM as follows: • Estimate of delay at boundary intersections;

• Estimate of the difficulty of crossing the street segment in the LOS Segment Score; and

• Combines the LOS Segment Score with a LOS score for Pedestrian Space to determine the overall Pedestrian LOS.

BACKGROUND

• HCM 2010 - Changes to Bicycle Methodology

• Largely adopts the recommendations of NCHRP

Report 616.

• Link LOS is based on the FDOT Q/LOS

methodology.

• Expands on the previous HCM in several ways:

• Accounts for traffic control and integrates an estimate of

delay and LOS at boundary intersections;

• Accounts for the affect of access points along the right

side of the street.

CRITICAL METHODOLOGY FINDINGS

• Pedestrian Roadway Crossing Difficulty Factor

The pedestrian LOS

segment score

(HCM equation 17-38):

The roadway crossing difficulty factor

(HCM equation 17-37):



• Ped Waiting Delay input has a significant effect

• A value for ped waiting delay isn’t necessary for segments

without legal uncontrolled crossings.

• A one second increase in Pedestrian Waiting Delay results in

the largest possible impact on the Roadway Crossing

Difficulty Factor.


• Bicycle Mode Methodology

The bicycle segment LOS score (HCM equation 17-45):

The bicycle segment LOS table

(HCM exhibit 17-4):


• Bicycle Mode Methodology

• The Bicycle Segment LOS Score can never be lower than

2.85, which limits the LOS range between LOS C to F.

• The number of access points has a significant affect on the

Segment LOS.

MULTIMODAL LOS METHODOLOGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

• The baseline roadway segment was tested by

varying the following key attributes:

• Number of Access Points

• On-street Parking Occupancy Proportion

• Bicycle Lane Width

• Outside Lane Width

• Traffic volumes levels (100, 200, 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000

vph)

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9.9

HC

M 2

01

0 S

egm

en

t LO

S Sc

ore

Bicycle Lane Width

Urban Street Segment LOS vs. Bike Lane Width

Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 100 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 100 vph)






LOS B

LOS C

LOS D

LOS E

LOS F

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

HC

M 2

01

0 S

egm

en

t LO

S Sc

ore

Outside Lane Width

Urban Street Segment LOS vs. Outside Lane Width







LOS B

LOS C

LOS D

LOS E

LOS F

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

HC

M 2

01

0 S

egm

en

t LO

S Sc

ore

On-street Parking Occupancy

Urban Streets Segment LOS vs. On-street Parking Occupancy

Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 100 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 100 vph)Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 200 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 200 vph)Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 500 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 500 vph)Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 1000 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 1000 vph)Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 1500 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 1500 vph)Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 2000 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 2000 vph)

LOS B

LOS C

LOS D

LOS E

LOS F

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

HC

M 2

01

0 S

egm

en

t LO

S Sc

ore

Number of Access Points per Segment

Urban Streets Segment LOS vs. Access Points







LOS B

LOS C

LOS D

LOS E

LOS F

SEGMENT MULTIMODAL LOS METHODOLOGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

HC

M 2

01

0 S

egm

en

t LO

S Sc

ore

Number of Access Points per Segment

Urban Streets Segment LOS vs. Access Points







LOS B

LOS C

LOS D

LOS E

LOS F

SEGMENT MULTIMODAL LOS METHODOLOGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: ON-STREET PARKING

OCCUPANCY PROPORTION

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

HC

M 2

01

0 S

egm

en

t LO

S Sc

ore

On-street Parking Occupancy

Urban Streets Segment LOS vs. On-street Parking Occupancy

Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 100 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 100 vph)Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 200 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 200 vph)Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 500 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 500 vph)Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 1000 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 1000 vph)Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 1500 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 1500 vph)Pedestrian Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 2000 vph) Bike Mode (Adjacent Traffic: 2000 vph)

LOS B

LOS C

LOS D

LOS E

LOS F

SEGMENT MULTIMODAL LOS METHODOLOGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: BICYCLE LANE WIDTH

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9.9

HC

M 2

01

0 S

egm

en

t LO

S Sc

ore

Bicycle Lane Width

Urban Street Segment LOS vs. Bike Lane Width







LOS B

LOS C

LOS D

LOS E

LOS F

SEGMENT MULTIMODAL LOS METHODOLOGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: OUTSIDE LANE WIDTH

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

HC

M 2

01

0 S

egm

en

t LO

S Sc

ore

Outside Lane Width

Urban Street Segment LOS vs. Outside Lane Width







LOS B

LOS C

LOS D

LOS E

LOS F

LINK MULTIMODAL LOS METHODOLOGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS

LINK MULTIMODAL LOS METHODOLOGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: ON-STREET PARKING OCCUPANCY

PROPORTION

LINK MULTIMODAL LOS METHODOLOGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: BICYCLE LANE WIDTH

LINK MULTIMODAL LOS METHODOLOGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: OUTSIDE LANE WIDTH

EXISTING METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

• The HCM 2010 Urban Street LOS methodology is a data-intensive and complex operational model for non-automotive transportation

• Pedestrian Waiting Delay heavily influences LOS and returns illogical results when equal to 0.

• The Bicycle mode segment methodology limits results to LOS C or greater.

• The sensitivity analyses indicates the following: • Varying geometric attributes of the street has minimal

impact on the pedestrian segment LOS.

• Varying the number of access points, outside lane width, and bicycle lane width have a significant impact on the bicycle segment LOS results.

EXISTING METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

• An alternative approach for multimodal design

projects may be to rely on the results of the

pedestrian and bicycle link analysis:

• The Pedestrian and Bicycle Link LOS results show greater

sensitivity .

• Provides a full range of results (LOS A to F).

ALTERNATIVE MULTIMODAL LOS MODEL OPTIONS

• Criteria for acceptance of an alternative model:

• The model should simplify the set of input variables required

for use by practitioners.

• The model should provide a relatively easily understood

output, such as the typical LOS A-F scoring system.

• The model should evaluate facility quality based on a

quantitative analytical methodology based in national or

state-level research, rather than a subjective checklist of

facility attributes.

• The model should focus on link-level pedestrian and

bicycle facility attributes and may or may not include

intersection attributes.

• Preferably, the model should analyze both pedestrian and

bicycle LOS in a unified format.


• Key variables affecting multimodal LOS:

Pedestrian Mode Variables Bicycle Mode Variables

Average Pedestrian Space

Walkway Presence/Width

On-street Parking

Adjacent Traffic Volume

Adjacent Traffic Speed

Street Crossing Delay/Difficulty

Bicycle Lane Presence/Width

Adjacent Traffic Volume

Adjacent Traffic Speed

On-street Parking

Pavement Condition

Conflicting Access Points


• LOS+

• FazPedestrian and Fazbicycle

• Cumulative Logistics Regression Models

• Charlotte Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS

• LOSPLAN-Q/LOS

• Fort Collins Pedestrian LOS

• Alternative NCHRP Report 616 Models

• Bicycle Compatibility Index

• Bicycle Level of Service

• Danish Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service

• Bicycle Environmental Quality Index

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Index

• Bicycle Level of Stress Model

• Complete Streets LOS


• Most promising alternatives:

• LOS Plus.

• FDOT LOSPLAN-Q/LOS.

• Alternative NCHRP Report 616 Models.

• Cumulative Logistics Regression Models.

• Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI).

• Bicycle Level of Stress Model.


Alternatives Summary: • The models generally based on the HCM 2010

methodologies (LOS Plus, FDOT LOSPLAN, and NCHRP 3-70): • Incorporate most of the critical variables

• incorporate more total variables, (more data collection, greater degree of understanding of the model structure).

• The LOS Plus and FDOT LOSPLAN models have established software interfaces.

• Of the non-HCM based models, the Cumulative Logistic Regression Models are the only option that addresses both pedestrian and bicycle LOS.

• The BCI and Level of Stress models: • Limited in scope

• Depart from the generally accepted HCM-based LOS scoring.

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

• Identify supplemental studies

• Review other alternative methodologies warranting

further exploration

QUESTIONS

evaluation of the multimodal level of service (LOS) analysis · BACKGROUND •HCM 2010 - Changes to...

Documents

Transcript of evaluation of the multimodal level of service (LOS) analysis · BACKGROUND •HCM 2010 - Changes to...