HCM 2010 HCM 2010: Urban Street Concepts

HCM 2010
Urban Street Concepts:

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit
-1-
Overview
Whats New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies

Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
HCM 2010 Course
Overview
| Urban
& Multimodal
Street Concepts:
Level of Service
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes
-2-

(The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual)
Volume 1 Concepts
Volume 2 Uninterrupted Flow Facilities
Freeways, rural highways, rural roads
Volume 3 Interrupted Flow Facilities

Urban arterials, intersections, roundabouts
Signals at freeway interchanges,
Bicycle and Pedestrian paths
Volume 4 Supplemental Materials (Website)
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

-3-

Guidance on How to Apply the HCM
How and when to use microsimulation
Interpretation and presentation of results
Service volume tables
New Freeway Weaving Method

New Chapter on Active Traffic Management
New Arterial Street Method
Multimodal Level of Service
New Roundabout Method
-4-

(HCM 2010 Urban Street Analysis)
Predict Stops, Speed, Queues

Models signal coordination
force offs, yields
Mixed street: signal, stops, roundabout

Sensitive to access management
driveways, median breaks
Service Volume Table

-5-
Overview
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model

Q&A
HCM 2010 Course
Overview
| Urban
& Multimodal
Street Concepts:
Level of Service
-6-
Brief History of HCM Multimodal Analysis

1950 HCM
Streetcars and buses impact
motorized vehicle capacity at
traffic signals
Pedestrian impacts on motorized
vehicle capacity addressed indirectly
1965 HCM
LOS concept introduced
Short (11-page) chapter on bus transit

-7-

1985 HCM
Greatly expanded transit chapter
LOS measures based on the
probability of a queue of buses
forming at a bus stop, passenger loads
New pedestrian chapter
LOS for sidewalks and street corners
based on pedestrian space
New 4-page bicycle chapter
Focused mainly on bicycle impacts
on motorized vehicle capacity
-8-

HCM 2000
Transit chapter an abridgement
of the then-new Transit Capacity &
Quality of Service Manual
LOS measures for frequency, hours
of service, passenger load, reliability
Expanded pedestrian chapter
Methods for additional facility types
LOS based on pedestrian space, speed, delay
Expanded bicycle chapter
LOS based on bicycle speed, delay, hindrance
-9-

HCM 2000 focus group findings
Many jurisdictions didnt require multimodal analyses
Therefore, they werent performed
Jurisdictions that did want to perform pedestrian &
bicycle analyses didnt find the HCM 2000 measures
useful
For example, Maryland & Florida used measures of
user comfort
Most pedestrian and bicycle facilities dont have
capacity or speed issues
No need to analyze them using HCM procedures
- 10 -

Issues with HCM 2000
alternative mode measures:
Pedestrian and bicycle LOS
measures reflected a
traffic engineers perspective
Transit measures reflected
a travelers perspective, but
4 LOS measures created issues
with results interpretation
HCM 2000: Ped LOS A
HCM 2000: Ped LOS D

- 11 -
Multimodal Research Since HCM 2000

Shared-use path LOS
(FHWA, 2006)
Florida Quality/Level of
Service Handbook
(FDOT, 2002 & 2009)
Transit Capacity &

Quality of Service
Manual, 2nd Edition
(TCRP Report 100, 2003)
Urban street
multimodal LOS
(NCHRP Report 616, 2008)
- 12 -
HCM 2010 Multimodal Philosophy

Integrate multimodal analysis methods into
the appropriate HCM methodological
chapters wherever possible
Alternative mode material is presented side-by-side
with auto mode material to encourage greater
consideration of alternative modes by analysts
Encourage software developers to add multimodal
analysis features
No separate bike, ped, transit chapters

- 13 -

Refer readers to the Transit Capacity &
Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) for most
transit operational analysis methods
Difficult to keep the HCM & TCQSM in synch
HCM still presents transit material used for a
multimodal analysis of an urban street

- 14 -

Allow trade-offs in the use of the right-of-way
by different modes to be evaluated
Impacting Mode
Mode Affected
Auto
Ped
Bike
Transit
Auto
Auto & HV volumes

Turning patterns
Lane configurations
Minimum green time

Turn conflicts
Mid-block xings
Turn conflicts
Passing delay
Heavy vehicle
Blocking delay: stops
Signal priority
Ped
Auto & HV volumes

Signal cycle length
Driver yielding
Turn conflicts
Traffic separation
Sidewalk crowding
Crosswalk crowding
Cross-flows
Shared-path conflicts
Bicyclist yielding
Heavy vehicle
Transit stop queues
Bus stop cross-flows
Vehicle yielding
Bike
Auto & HV volumes

Auto & HV speed
On-street parking
Turn conflicts
Traffic separation
Shared-path conflicts
Min. green time
Turn conflicts
Mid-block xings
Bike volumes
Heavy vehicle
Blocking delay: stops
Tracks
Transit
Auto volumes
Signal timing
Ped. env. quality

Minimum green time
Turn conflicts
Mid-block xings
Bike environment quality

Bike volumes
Bus volumes

- 15 -
Overview
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model

Q&A
HCM 2010 Course
Overview
| Urban
& Multimodal
Street Concepts:
Level of Service
- 16 -
Methodology Selection
NCHRP Report 616 method used in HCM 2010
Designed specifically for the HCM
LOS measures based on traveler perceptions
Modal LOS scores can be directly compared to each
other and reflect average traveler satisfaction by mode
Model developed and tested
based on national conditions

- 17 -
Methodology Development
Pedestrian, bicycle, auto modes:
90 typical street segments recorded
Video labs in four cities around the U.S.
120 Participants rated conditions on a 16 scale,

- 18 -
Methodology Development
Transit mode:
Video lab not a feasible
On-board surveys conducted in 4 cities
However, results showed too wide a range to fit a
model to
Final model was based on national traveler response
data to changes in transit service quality
For example, when service frequency or travel time
is improved, ridership increases

- 19 -
Methodology
Characteristics
All models generate an perception score that
is generally in the range of 16
All models have multiple service quality
factors as inputs
Traditional HCM service measures are based on a
single factor (e.g., delay)
LOS thresholds are the same across models

- 20 -
LOS Score Interpretation
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
LOS Score
2.00
>2.002.75
>2.753.50
>3.504.25
>4.255.00
>5.00
Auto LOS is based on travel speed as a

percentage of base free-flow speed instead of
on the auto perception score
- 21 -
LOS Score
Interpretation
LOS is reported individually by mode and
direction
No combined LOS for the street
Auto volumes would typically dominate an LOS
weighted by number of travelers
Combined LOS would potentially mask important
deficiencies for a given mode
Measures the degree to which urban streets

meet the need of all users

- 22 -
Treatment of Safety in Multimodal LOS

HCM 2010 does not explicitly include safety
in LOS calculations.
Crash history does not affect LOS
However, HCM 2010 does include safety

implicitly.
Traveler Perceived Safety
Speed of traffic, percent heavy vehicles, barriers
between sidewalk and street, lateral separation
between vehicle stream and bicyclists and
pedestrians.

- 23 -
Urban Street System

Elements: Link
link
Distance between two signalized intersections

Roundabout or all-way STOP could also be an end
point
Perception score for bike, ped modes

- 24 -
Urban Street System

Elements: Intersection
link
int.
Signalized intersection, roundabout, or allway STOP that terminates a link

Intersection scores only for ped/bike modes
- 25 -
Urban Street System

Elements: Segment
segment
link
int.
Segment = link + downstream intersection

Perception scores available for all modes
Ped & bike scores based on combination of link,
intersection, and additional factor
- 26 -
Urban Street System

Elements: Facility
facility
segment
link
int.
Facility = 2 or more consecutive segments

Perception scores available for all modes
Length-weighted average of the segment scores
- 27 -
Overview
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model

Q&A
HCM 2010 Course
Overview
| Urban
& Multimodal
Street Concepts:
Level of Service
- 28 -
Pedestrian LOS: Links

- 29 -

Model Factors
Factors included:
Outside travel lane width (+)
Bicycle lane/shoulder width (+)
Buffer presence (e.g., on-street parking, street trees) (+)
Sidewalk presence and width (+)
Volume and speed of motor vehicle traffic in outside
travel lane ()
Pedestrian density considered separately

Worse of (density LOS, link LOS score) used in
determining overall link LOS
- 30 -

Model Form
I p ,link = 6.0468 + Fv + FS + Fw
Ped Link LOS
Constant
Score
Vehicle
Vehicle
Cross-
Volume
Speed
Section
Factor
Mid-segment demand
flow rate (veh/h)
SR
Fs = 4
100
vm
Fv = 0.0091
4 N th
Number of through
Motorized vehicle
lanes in direction of
running speed (mi/h)
travel
[from auto model]

- 31 -

Model Form
Fw = 1.2276 ln( Wv + 0.5 W1 + 50 p pk + Wbuf f b + WaA f sw )
Constant
Wv = effective total
% occupied
Fb = 1.00
width of outside
on-street
(no barrier)
through lane, bike
parking
lane, and shoulder

W1 = effective total
width of bike lane
and shoulder
WaA Wbuf W1
Wv
- 32 -
Fb = 5.37
(barrier)
fsw = 6.0 3WaA

WaA =
min(WA,10 ft)
Pedestrian LOS: Signalized Intersections

- 33 -

Model Factors
Factors included:
Permitted left turn and right-turn-on-red volumes ()
Cross-street motor vehicle volumes and speeds ()
Crossing length ()
Average pedestrian delay ()
Right-turn channelizing island presence (+)

- 34 -

Model Form
I p ,int = 0.5997 + Fw + FS + Fdelay + Fv

Ped Intersection
Constant
LOS Score
Cross-
Speed
Pedestrian
Volum
Section
Factor
Delay
Factor
Factor
Factor
( )
Fw = 0.681 N d
[from auto model]
0.514
Number of traffic
lanes crossed
FS = 0 .00013 n15 ,mi S 85 ,mi

Minor street
Minor street
traffic volume
midblock auto
(veh/ln/15 min)
speed (mi/h)

- 35 -

Model Form
v rtor + v lt , perm
Fv = 0.00569
4
Constant
N rtci ,d 0.0027 n15 ,mj 0.1946
Conflicting
Number of
Traffic volume of
traffic flow over
right-turn
street being
crosswalk
channelizing
crossed
(veh/h)
islands along
(veh/ln/15 min)
crossing

- 36 -
Pedestrian LOS: Segments

- 37 -

Model Factors
Factors included:
Pedestrian link LOS (+)
Pedestrian intersection LOS (+)
Street-crossing difficulty (/+)
Delay diverting to signalized crossing
Delay crossing street at legal unsignalized location

- 38 -

Model Form
I p ,seg = Fcd 0.318 I p ,link + 0.220 I p ,int + 1.606

Ped Segment
Ped Link
LOS Score
LOS Score
Ped Intersection Constant

LOS Score
Minimum of
diversion time &
unsignalized crossing delay time
Fcd = 1 .0 +
0.10 d px ( 0.318 I p ,link + 0 .220 I p ,int + 1 .606 )

7 .5

- 39 -
Pedestrian LOS: Facility
Length-weighted average of segment LOS scores

Can mask deficiencies in individual segments
Consider also reporting segment LOS score for the worst
segment in the facility
- 40 -
Overview
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model

Q&A
HCM 2010 Course
Overview
| Urban
& Multimodal
Street Concepts:
Level of Service
- 41 -
Bicycle LOS: Links

- 42 -
Bicycle LOS: Links

Model Factors
Factors included:
Volume and speed of traffic in outside travel lane ()
Heavy vehicle percentage ()
Pavement condition (+)
Bicycle lane presence (+)
Bicycle lane, shoulder, and outside lane widths (+)
On-street parking utilization ()

- 43 -
Bicycle LOS: Links

Model Form
I b ,link = 0 .760 + Fv + FS + F p + Fw
Bike Link LOS
Constant
Score
Volume
Speed Pavement
Factor
Factor Condition Section

Factor
7.066
Fp =
Pc 2
CrossFactor
Adjusted midblock vehicle flow rate (veh/h)
v ma
Fv = 0.507 ln
4 N th
Pavement condition
rating (15)
Number of through lanes in travel direction
FS = 0.199 [1.1199 ln( S Ra 20 ) + 0.8103 ] (1 + 0.1038 PHVa ) 2

Vehicle running
Adjusted percent
speed (>= 21 mi/h)
heavy vehicles

- 44 -
Bicycle LOS: Links

Model Form
Fw = 0.005 W
Condition
ppk = 0.0
vm > 160 veh/h or street is divided
Wbl + Wos* < 4.0 ft
v (1- 0.01 P ) < 200 veh/h
2
e
Variable When
Condition Is Satisfied
Wt = Wol + Wbl + Wos*
Wv = Wt
We = Wv 10 ppk 0.0
Effective width of
outside through lane
Variable When
Condition Is Not Satisfied
Wt = Wol + Wbl
Wv = Wt (2 0.005 vm)
We = Wv + Wbl + Wos* 20 ppk 0.0
Wos = width of paved outside shoulder

Wos* = adjusted width of paved outside shoulder (same as ped link LOS)
Wos
Wbl
Wol
Wt
- 45 -
Bicycle LOS: Signalized Intersections

- 46 -

Model Factors
Factors included:
Width of outside through lane and bicycle lane (+)
Cross-street width ()
Motor vehicle traffic volume in the outside lane ()

- 47 -

Model Form
I b , int = 4.1324 + Fw + Fv
Bike
Constant
Cross-
Vehicle
Intersection
Section
Volume
LOS Score
Factor
Factor
Motorized traffic volume

in travel direction
Fw = 0.0153 Wcd 0.2144 Wt
v lt + v th + v rt
Fv = 0 .0066
4 N th
Curb-to-curb
Total width of
cross-street
outside lane,
Number of through lanes
width
bike lane,
in travel direction
paved shoulder
- 48 -
Bicycle LOS: Segments

- 49 -

Model Factors
Factors included:
Bicycle link LOS (+)
Bicycle intersection LOS, if signalized (+)
Number of access points on right side ()
Includes driveways and unsignalized street
intersections
Judgment required on how low-volume residential
driveways are treated

- 50 -

Model Form
Number of access
points on right side
I b ,seg = 0.160 I b ,link + 0 .011 Fbi e

Bike Segment
Bike Link
LOS Score
LOS Score
I b ,int
+ 0.035
Bike
Indicator
Variable Intersection
LOS Score
Fbi = 1 if signalized
Fbi = 0 if unsignalized

- 51 -
N ap ,s
( L / 5280 )
+ 2.85
Segment length Constant

(mi)
Bicycle LOS: Facility
Length-weighted average of segment LOS scores

Can mask deficiencies in individual segments
Consider also reporting segment LOS score for the worst
segment in the facility
- 52 -
Overview
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model

Q&A
HCM 2010 Course
Overview
| Urban
& Multimodal
Street Concepts:
Level of Service
- 53 -
Transit LOS:
Overview
Only segment and facility LOS models
Transit facility LOS is a length-weighted average
of segment LOS
Transit includes buses, streetcars, and

street-running light rail
Three main model components:
Access to transit (pedestrian link LOS)
Wait for transit (frequency)
Riding transit (perceived travel time rate)
- 54 -
Transit LOS: Segment

Model Form
Perceived Travel Time
I t , seg = 6 .0 1.50 Fh Ftt + 0.15 I p ,link

Ped Link
Transit Segment
LOS Score
Headway Factor

- 55 -
LOS Score
Transit LOS:
Headway Factor
Fh = 4.00 e
Headway factor
1.434 /( v s + 0.001 )
Number of transit vehicles

serving segment per hour

- 56 -
Transit LOS:
Perceived Travel Time Components
Factors included:
Actual bus travel speed (+)
Bus stop amenities (+)
Excess wait time due to late bus/train arrival ()
On-board crowding ()
Default value of time data and average

passenger trip lengths used to convert actual
times into perceived times
For example, the trip seems to take longer when one
has to stand
- 57 -
Transit LOS:
Perceived Travel Time Factor
Ftt =
( e 1) Tbtt ( e + 1) Tptt
( e 1) Tptt ( e + 1) Tbtt
e = ridership elasticity with respect to travel time changes, default value = -0.4
Tbtt = base travel time rate (4.0 or 6.0 min/mi)
Tptt = perceived travel time rate

- 58 -
Transit LOS:
Perceived Travel Time Rate
Perceived travel
time rate (min/mi)
60
+ (2 Tex ) Tat
Tptt = a1
STt ,seg
Crowding
Actual
Perceived
perception travel
travel time
factor
Perceived
travel time rate
due to stop
amenities
time rate rate due to

late arrivals
1.00
Load factor (p/seat) <= 0.80
( 4)( Fl 0.80)
0.80< Load factor <= 1.00
a1 = 1 +
4. 2
( 4)( Fl 0.80) + ( Fl 1.00)(6.5 + [( 5)( Fl 1.00)])

Load factor > 1.00
1 +
4
.
2
F
l

- 59 -
Overview
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model

Q&A
HCM 2010 Course
Overview
| Urban
& Multimodal
Street Concepts:
Level of Service
- 60 -
Case Study
Community Transportation Plan
First application of
MMLOS for Urban
Streets
Pre-2010 HCM
DC&E Prime
consultant
Harri-Oak

- 61 -
Case Study
Corridor Characteristics
One-way couplet
High density residential
Commercial nodes
Middle school
Divided by freeway
Former streetcar suburb
Public stairways
CBD
- 62 -
Case Study
Commercial Node
CBD
Stairway
Residential
I-580
Narrow Sidewalk
- 63 -
Case Study
Design Alternative 1
Pedestrian bulb-outs
Install bike lanes and sharrows
Change northern couplet to 2way vehicle operations
Reduce 5-legged intersection to
4
Eliminate channelized right turn
lanes
N
Source: Design, Community, and Environment

- 64 -
Case Study
Design Alternative 2
Widen sidewalks
Reduce vehicle lanes (3 to 2)
Pedestrian bulb-outs
Bus bulbs and relocation to far side
Reduce 5-legged intersection to 4
Eliminate channelized right turn
lanes
N
- 65 -
Case Study
MMLOS Results - AM Peak-Hour Southbound
Segment & Downstream Signal
From
To
Bayo Vista Ave
MacArthur/
Santa Clara
Pearl St
MacArthur/ Santa
Clara
Pearl St
Westlake School
Westlake School 27th/ 24th/ Bay Pl
27th/ 24th/ Bay

Pl
Grand Ave
Facility
Scenario
Transit
Bicycle
Pedestrian
LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score
No Project
2.74
4.39
2.77
Alt. 1
2.81
4.83
3.20
Alt. 2
2.73
4.26
2.70
No Project
3.35
4.01
2.79
Alt. 1
3.35
4.00
2.79
Alt. 2
3.35
4.01
2.81
No Project
3.36
4.05
3.03
Alt. 1
3.36
4.00
3.02
Alt. 2
3.38
3.99
3.19
No Project
3.39
6.29
3.08
Alt. 1
3.39
5.16
3.06
Alt. 2
3.38
5.05
2.98
No Project
3.33
4.89
2.79
Alt. 1
3.34
4.89
2.79
Alt. 2
3.33
4.87
2.79
No Project
3.22
4.41
2.91
Alt. 1
3.23
4.40
3.00
Alt. 2
3.22
4.26
2.95
Dowling Associates, Inc., Multi-Modal Level of Service analysis using version 10.3 spreadsheet, March 2009

- 66 -
Case Study
Preferred Alternative
Northern couplet to 2-way vehicle operations
Reduce vehicle lanes (3 to 2)
Widen sidewalks and intersection bulb-outs
Bus bulb-outs and relocation to far side

- 67 -
Case Study
Preferred Alternative
5-legged intersection reduced to 4 legs
Removal of channelized right turn lanes
Shortened signal cycle length
Improvement for
all modes
Signal
coordination
Existing
Proposed

- 68 -
Case Study
Benefits of MMLOS
Outreach
Effective communication tool to laypersons
Demonstrated serious analysis of all travel modes
Practitioner viewpoint led to:
Refinements to methodology for HCM
Sensitivity analysis
Software development

- 69 -
Case Study
Lessons Learned
Conduct traffic diversion analysis
Vehicle volume reduction benefits not quantified
Estimate vehicle speed
Speed reduction benefits not quantified
Bicyclist LOS
Results can exceed score of 6!
Difficult to get bikeways above LOS C
May need to calibrate to local conditions
- 70 -
Case Study
General Plan
Adopted 2011
Dyett and Bhatia
Prime consultant
How to incorporate
MMLOS

- 71 -
Case Study
General Plan
Complete Street general policies
Designation of circulation system
Move away from motorist-only perceptions
Incorporate more multimodal designations
Source: Dyett and Bhatia

- 72 -
Case Study
General Plan
General Plan

- 73 -
Case Study
General Plan
Prioritization of different street types by
mode

- 74 -
Case Study
General Plan
More robust determination of improvements

- 75 -
Case Study
General Plan
MMLOS summary of factors for each mode

- 76 -
Case Study
Specific Plan
Adopted 2011
Guide to revitalize in a
sustainable manner
MMLOS analysis
Existing
2030 No Project
2030 Specific Plan

- 77 -
Case Study
Specific Plan
MMLOS Analysis
AM Peak-Hour
Northbound
Corridor
Section Scenario
North
Central
South
Southbound
Transit
Transit
Passenger
Bicyclist
Pedestrian Passenger
Bicyclist
Pedestrian
Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS
Existing
1.67
3.45
2.98
1.65
3.55
3.07
2030 No Project
2.11
3.49
3.08
1.78
3.61
3.19
2030 Specific Plan
2.07
3.18
2.84
1.76
3.29
3.04
Existing
1.08
3.50
3.06
1.10
3.49
2.96
2030 No Project
1.22
3.54
3.15
1.27
3.55
3.07
2030 Specific Plan
1.20
3.48
3.03
1.23
2.95
2.83
Existing
0.91
4.13
2.87
0.80
3.60
2.83
2030 No Project
1.07
4.22
2.99
1.06
3.65
2.96
2030 Specific Plan
1.04
3.69
2.81
1.05
3.57
2.85
Dowling Associates, Inc., Multi-Modal Level of Service analysis using CompleteStreetsLOS version 2.1.8, November 2010
Legend
Worse than existing
Worse than existing but better than 2030 No Project
Better than existing

- 78 -
Case Study
Specific Plan
MMLOS Analysis
PM Peak-Hour
Northbound
Corridor
Section Scenario
North
Central
South
Southbound
Transit
Transit
Passenger
Bicyclist
Pedestrian Passenger
Bicyclist
Pedestrian
Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS
Existing
1.71
3.61
3.26
1.64
3.53
3.03
2030 No Project
1.79
3.70
3.43
2.08
3.63
3.23
2030 Specific Plan
1.76
3.35
3.20
2.05
3.30
3.08
Existing
1.10
3.57
3.20
1.08
3.44
2.84
2030 No Project
1.14
3.70
3.47
2.50
3.50
3.06
2030 Specific Plan
1.12
3.62
3.35
2.46
2.90
2.82
Existing
0.95
4.36
3.10
0.79
3.58
2.76
2030 No Project
0.99
4.78
3.37
1.30
3.69
2.99
2030 Specific Plan
0.96
3.90
3.21
1.29
3.60
2.89
Dowling Associates, Inc., Multi-Modal Level of Service analysis using CompleteStreetsLOS version 2.1.8, November 2010
Legend
Worse than existing
Worse than existing but better than 2030 No Project
Better than existing

- 79 -
Case Study
General and Specific Plan
Benefits of MMLOS
Provided baseline LOS for all travel modes
Reasonableness of LOS standards
Tested MMLOS for Specific Plan scenario
Multimodal roadway designations
Provides guidelines for improvements
Informs mitigation requirements
Provides an analysis tool

- 80 -
Case Study
General and Specific Plan
Lessons Learned
MMLOS works well analyzing fixed right-of-way
How to allocate space
Quantifies trade-offs between modes
Developing policy standards
Establish baseline
Conduct sketch what-if scenarios
May lead to prioritizing specific modes on streets

- 81 -
Overview
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model

Q&A
Overview
& Multimodal
Street Concepts:
Level of Service
HCM 2010 Course
| Urban
- 82 -
Worked with the City of

Pasadena to analyze
multimodal impacts of
two projects
1. Road Diet Evaluation
2. Development Impact
Analysis

- 83 -

Road Diet Evaluation
When implementing a road diet, many

concerns arise including:
How will the lane reduction affect the auto mode?
Will transit operations be affected?
How much will the bicycle mode improve as a result of
adding bike lanes?
Will there be any benefit to pedestrians?
Orange Grove Blvd. was analyzed using

multimodal LOS to address these concerns

- 84 -

11,200 ADT
1.6 Miles

- 85 -


- 86 -

Issues with Current Cross Section

No facilities for bicyclists
Light traffic volumes for a large right-of-way (ROW)
roadway
Higher speeds and wider crossing width which detract
from a neighborhood feel

- 87 -


- 88 -


- 89 -


- 90 -

The Result:
Analysis showed that the road diet will result in minor changes to the
transit and auto mode
The pedestrian and bicycle modes will improve between 9% and 20% if
the road diet is implemented on this corridor

- 91 -

Transit
Auto speed decreased (-)
Pedestrian LOS improved (+)
Bicycle
Slower auto speeds (+)
Fewer through lanes for same volume (-)
Exclusive bike lane (+)
Pedestrian
More vehicles in lane nearest pedestrians (-)
Increased space between auto and ped (+)
- 92 -
Development Impact Analysis

- 93 -

Impact studies generally only consider auto

Pasadena finding it difficult to mitigate
certain areas
How might MMLOS provide another tool
A recent development project was selected to
test multimodal LOS

- 94 -

Project consisted of:

156 room hotel
38,000 ft2 of dining
14,000 ft2 retail
103,000 ft2 office

8,000 ft2 of bank
Generated 4,900 daily trips

289 trips in the AM peak hour
488 trips in the PM peak hour

- 95 -


- 96 -

Facility Level Results for Colorado Blvd.

- 97 -

Link results for Colorado Blvd.

- 98 -


- 99 -


- 100 -

Transit
Minimal effect, transit speed slightly slower (-)
Pedestrian LOS slightly worse (-)
Bicycle
Increased volume (-)
Pedestrian
More vehicles in lane nearest pedestrians (-)
All impacts minor, volume has only small

effect on LOS for non-auto modes
- 101 -

Conclusions
Lessons Learned:
Multimodal LOS not very sensitive to volume
changes
Methodology much better at quantitatively
showing impacts to all four modes resulting
from physical attributes such as:
Cross section changes (Pedestrians/Bikes)
Trees or other buffers (Pedestrians)
Pavement condition (Bikes)

- 102 -
Overview
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model

Q&A
HCM 2010 Course
Overview
| Urban
& Multimodal
Street Concepts:
Level of Service
- 103 -
Questions/Comments
Richard Dowling rdowling@kittelson.com

Kamala Parks kparks@kittelson.com
Aaron Elias, aelias@kittelson.com
104

- 104 -

HCM 2010 HCM 2010: Urban Street Concepts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HCM 2010 HCM 2010: Urban Street Concepts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HCM 2010

Urban Street Concepts:

Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies

Whats New for HCM 2010?

Volume 3 Interrupted Flow Facilities

Volume 4 Supplemental Materials (Website)

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

Whats New for HCM 2010?

New Freeway Weaving Method

Whats New for HCM 2010?

Predict Stops, Speed, Queues

Mixed street: signal, stops, roundabout

Service Volume Table

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies

Brief History of HCM Multimodal Analysis

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

Brief History of HCM Multimodal Analysis

Brief History of HCM Multimodal Analysis

Brief History of HCM Multimodal Analysis

Brief History of HCM Multimodal Analysis

HCM 2000: Ped LOS A

HCM 2000: Ped LOS D

Multimodal Research Since HCM 2000

Transit Capacity &

HCM 2010 Multimodal Philosophy

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

HCM 2010 Multimodal Philosophy

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

HCM 2010 Multimodal Philosophy

Auto & HV volumes

Minimum green time

Auto & HV volumes

Auto & HV volumes

Ped. env. quality

Bike environment quality

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

LOS thresholds are the same across models

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

LOS Score Interpretation

Auto LOS is based on travel speed as a

Measures the degree to which urban streets

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

Treatment of Safety in Multimodal LOS

However, HCM 2010 does include safety

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

Urban Street System

Distance between two signalized intersections

Perception score for bike, ped modes

Urban Street System

Signalized intersection, roundabout, or allway STOP that terminates a link

Urban Street System

Segment = link + downstream intersection

Urban Street System

Facility = 2 or more consecutive segments

Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies

Pedestrian LOS: Links

HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service

Pedestrian LOS: Links