Urban Street Analysis: Multimodal Operations

Module 6
Urban Street Analysis:

Multimodal Operations
Learning Objectives
 Learn how to estimate the following at a planning level for an urban street:
• Pedestrian and bicycle LOS
• Bus LOS
• Truck LOS
2
Background
 Proposed 14-mile bus rapid transit (BRT) route

 One of two travel lanes in each
direction to be converted to a
bus-only lane
 Workshop module 4
demonstrated the effect of
the proposal on autos
 How will other travel modes
be affected?
3
Study Facility
 The study facility consists of ½ mile of Telegraph Avenue between Shattuck

Ave and the SR 24 freeway, containing six traffic signals
4
Before-and-After Street Cross-Section
 Before: Two general-purpose travel lanes, on-street parking, and sidewalks

of varying width
 After: Right-hand travel lane converted to exclusive bus lane, parking
converted to a bicycle lane and landscape strip, sidewalk width reduced 2
feet
10' 9' 12' 11' 11' 12' 9' 10' 8' 5' 6' 12' 11' 11' 12' 6' 5' 8'
BUS
49th Street ONLY
48th Street ONLY

BUS
Before After
5
Question
 How do you expect quality of service to be affected as a result of the

proposal for each of the following travel modes, and why?
• Automobiles
• Buses
• Pedestrians
• Bicyclists
• Trucks/freight
6
Evaluation Approach
 Evaluate performance by mode for existing and proposed conditions

• Auto: Speed and auto LOS
• Bus: Speed and transit LOS
• Pedestrians: Pedestrian LOS
• Bicyclists: Bicycle LOS
• Trucks: Speed, reliability, and truck LOS
 Note that each mode has its own LOS measure
• Modal LOS is not combined into a single LOS result
 Examples will use the section of northbound Telegraph Avenue between
48th and 49th Streets
7
HCM Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS Models
 Models developed through NCHRP

Project 03-70 and first incorporated
in HCM 2010
 Draws from earlier FDOT research
 Models developed using video labs
• Participants rated their satisfaction with
scenes showing a variety of conditions
• Model is a regression equation that predicts average user
satisfaction as a numeric score, which can be converted into
a LOS letter
 Models tested in workshops held around the U.S.
8
Pedestrian Analysis: Input Data Requirements
 Planning method uses the HCM’s “link” method

• Evaluates ped environment quality between traffic signals
 2 required inputs:
• Number of travel lanes
• Hourly traffic volume
• These are also needed for a planning analysis
for the auto mode
 10 other inputs (can be defaulted if not known)
• 8 known from project parameters
• 2 defaulted
9
Pedestrian Analysis: Input Data
Input Data (units) How Obtained
Sidewalk width (ft) Known (10/8 ft) (before/after)
Free-flow pedestrian speed (ft/s) Not needed for link analysis
Segment length (ft) Not needed for link analysis
Signalized intersection delay walking
Not needed for link analysis
along street (s)
Signalized intersection delay crossing
street (s)
Outside lane width (ft) Known (12 ft)
Bicycle lane width (ft) Known (0/5 ft)*
Shoulder/parking lane width (ft) Known (8/0 ft)*
Percentage of segment with occupied on- Before: Default (50%)
street parking (decimal) After: Known (0%)
Street trees or other barriers (yes/no) Known (no/yes)
Landscape buffer width (ft) Known (0/5 ft)
Curb presence (yes/no) Known (yes)
Median type (divided/undivided) Not needed for link analysis
Number of travel lanes Known (2)
Directional vehicle volume (veh/h) Known (706 vph)
Vehicle running speed (mph) Default: posted speed + 5 mph (35 mph)
Intersection pedestrian LOS score
(unitless)
Average distance to nearest signal (ft) Not needed for link analysis
*Gutter width is not included as part of the bicycle and parking lane widths
10
Widths Used in the Pedestrian LOS Method
Parking Lane
and/or Shoulder
Outside
Travel
Lane Buffer
Bike Strip
Lane Side-
walk
W1
WB WSW
WT
Source: Adapted from Exhibit 99
11
Pedestrian LOS Score Equation (1)
𝑃𝐿𝑂𝑆=−1.2276×ln ([ 𝑓 𝐿𝑉 ×𝑊 𝑇 ]+ [ 0.5 ×𝑊 1]+[ 0.5 ×%𝑂𝑆𝑃 ]+[ 𝑓 𝐵 ×𝑊 𝐵] +[ 𝑓 𝑆𝑊 ×𝑊 𝑠] )

Equation 148 (page 141)
• “Before” conditions shown in red

• PLOS = pedestrian LOS score
• fLV = low-volume factor
= 1.00 if directional traffic volume V > 160 veh/h
= 2.00 − 0.005V otherwise
= 1.00 because V = 706 veh/h
• WT = distance from gutter to inside edge of closest travel lane
= 8 ft (parking) + 12 ft (travel lane) = 20 ft
• 12

• W1 = distance from gutter to outside edge of closest travel lane
= 8 ft (parking lane, not including gutter portion)
• %OSP = percent occupied on-street parking
= 50 (default value, use 50 and not 0.50)
• fB = buffer area coefficient
= 5.37 (street trees/bollards/barriers present)
= 1.00 (otherwise)
• WB = buffer width
= 0 ft (no buffer between street and sidewalk)
• 13

• Ws = sidewalk width, value capped at 10 ft
= 10 ft (actual sidewalk width)
• fSW = sidewalk presence coefficient
= 6.00 − 0.3Ws = 3.0
• V = directional traffic volume
= 706 veh/h
• N = directional travel lanes
= 2 lanes
• SPD = average mid-block vehicle speed
= 35 mph (defaulted as speed limit + 5 mph)
• 14
Pedestrian LOS Score and Letter: “Before” Condition
 From Exhibit 100 (page 142), ped LOS = B

PLOS Score LOS
≤1.50 A
>1.50–2.50 B
>2.50–3.50 C
>3.50–4.50 D
>4.50–5.50 E
>5.50 F
15
Bicycle Analysis: Input Data Requirements
 Planning method uses the HCM’s “link” method

• Evaluates bike environment quality between traffic signals
• Number of travel lanes
• Hourly traffic volume
• These are also needed for a planning analysis
for the auto mode
• 6 known from project parameters
• 3 defaulted
• All but 1 (pavement condition) also used for ped and/or auto analysis
16
Bicycle Analysis: Input Data
Not needed for link analysis Not needed for link analysis
Signalized intersection delay (s) Not needed for link analysis)
Segment length (ft) Not needed for link analysis
Bicycle lane width (ft) Known (0/5 ft) (before/after)*
Outside lane width (ft) Known (12 ft)
Shoulder/parking lane width (ft) Known (8/0 ft)*
Percentage of segment with occupied on- Before: Default (50%)
street parking (percent) After: Known (0%)
Pavement condition rating (1–5) Default: 3.5 (good)
Curb presence (yes/no) Known (yes)
Median type (divided/undivided) Known (undivided)
Number of travel lanes Known (2)
Directional vehicle volume (veh/h) Known (706 vph)
Vehicle running speed (mph) Default: posted speed + 5 mph (35 mph)
Percentage heavy vehicles (%) Known (5%)
Access points on the right side (points/mi) Not needed for link analysis
Intersection bicycle LOS score (unitless) Not needed for link analysis
*Gutter width is not included as part of the bicycle and parking lane widths
17
Widths Used in the Bicycle LOS Method
Parking Lane
and/or Shoulder
Outside
Travel
Lane Buffer
Bike Strip
Lane Side-
walk
Wl
Wt
only included in width when there

is no occupied on-street parking
Source: Adapted from Exhibit 102
18
Bicycle LOS Score Equation (1)
( ) ( [ ])
2
𝑉 1
+( 0.199× 𝑓 𝑠 × [1 +0.1038 𝐻𝑉 ] )+ 7.066×
2
− (0.005×𝑊 𝑒 )+0.760
2
𝐵𝐿𝑂𝑆=0.507×ln
4𝑁 𝑃𝐶
Equation 149 (page 145)
• “Before” conditions shown in red
• BLOS = bicycle LOS score
• V = directional traffic volume
= 706 veh/h
• N = directional travel lanes
= 2 lanes
19 • 19
Bicycle LOS Score Equation (2)
( ) ( [ ])
2
𝑉 1
+( 0.199× 𝑓 𝑠 × [1 +0.1038 𝐻𝑉 ] )+ 7.066×
2
− (0.005×𝑊 𝑒 )+0.760
2
4𝑁 𝑃𝐶
• SPD = average mid-block vehicle speed
= 35 mph (defaulted as speed limit + 5 mph)
• fs = speed factor
= 1.1199 × ln[SPD – 20] + 0.8103
= 3.8430
• HV = heavy vehicle percentage
= 5 (known)
• PC = pavement condition rating
= 3.5 (default)
20 • 20
Calculation of Average Effective Outside Lane Width
 We = Wv – (0.1 × %OSP) [if Wl < 4 ft]

We = Wv + Wl – (0.2 × %OSP) [otherwise]
• Wl = width of bicycle lane + (if %OSP = 0) parking lane
 Wv = Wt [V > 160 vph or divided street]

Wv = Wt × (2 – 0.005V) [otherwise]
• Wt = distance from gutter or inside edge of occupied parking
lane to inside edge of closest travel lane
 Wl = 0 ft, therefore We = Wv – (0.1 × %OSP)
V = 706 veh/h, therefore Wv = Wt = 12 ft
We = 12 – (0.1×50) = 7 ft
21
Bicycle LOS Score and Letter: “Before” Condition
 From Exhibit 103 (page 146), bicycle LOS = E
BLOS Score LOS

≤1.50 A
>1.50–2.50 B
>2.50–3.50 C
>3.50–4.50 D
>4.50–5.50 E
>5.50 F
22
Your Turn
 Calculate the pedestrian and bicycle LOS in the “after” condition

• Substitute the bus volume in the bus lane (9 bus/h)
for the V / N terms in the equations
• Remember to not include the 1-foot gutter width
as part of the bicycle lane width
• Street trees will be provided in
the landscape buffer
• Bus running speeds will be 30 mph 8' 5' 6' 12' 11' 11' 12' 6' 5' 8'
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
23
Pedestrian LOS Inputs: “After” Condition

• fLV = 2.00 − 0.005(9) = 1.96
• WT = 17 ft (travel lane + bicycle lane)
• W1 = 5 ft (bicycle lane)
• %OSP = 0
• fB = 5.37 (street trees provided)
• WB = 5 ft
• fSW = 6.0 − 0.3(8) = 3.6
• Ws = 8 ft
• V / N = 9 veh/h
• SPD = 30 mph
24
Pedestrian LOS Score and Letter: “After” Condition
𝑃𝐿𝑂𝑆=−1.2276×ln ([ 1.96×17 ]+[ 0.5×5 ]+[ 0.5×0 ]+[5.37×5 ]+[ 3.6×8 ])

PLOS = 0.88 (LOS A)
25
Bicycle LOS Inputs: “After” Condition
( ) ( [ ])
2
𝑉 1
+( 0.199× 𝑓 𝑠 × [1 +0.1038 𝐻𝑉 ] )+ 7.066×
2
− (0.005×𝑊 𝑒 )+0.760
2
4𝑁 𝑃𝐶
• V / N = 9 veh/h
• SPD = 30 mph
• fs = 1.1199 × ln[SPD – 20] + 0.8103 = 3.39
• HV = 5
• PC = 3.5
• Wt = 17 ft (travel lane + bicycle lane)
• Wv = Wt × (2 – 0.005V) = 17 (2 − 0.005×9) = 33.2
• Wl = 5 ft (bicycle lane)
• %OSP = 0
• We = Wv + Wl – (0.2 × %OSP) = 33.2 + 5 – (0.2×0) = 38.2 ft
26
Bicycle LOS Score and Letter: “After” Condition
() ( [ ])
2
9 1
𝐵𝐿𝑂𝑆=0.507×ln +( 0.199×3.39× [1 +0.1038(5)] ) + 7.066×
2
− ( 0.005×38.2❑ ) +0.760
2
4 3.5
BLOS = −3.99 (LOS A)
27
HCM Transit LOS Model
 Model developed through NCHRP

Project 03-70 and incorporated into
the HCM and TCQSM
 Model uses ridership elasticities
• Frequency, perceived travel time
• Model estimates the route ridership as a
multiplier, relative to 60-min headways and a base speed
• Pedestrian LOS also affects transit LOS
• LOS letters based on TCQSM 2nd ed. bus frequency ranges
 Model tested in workshops held around the U.S.
28
Transit Analysis: Input Data Requirements
 Planning method uses the HCM/TCQSM method

• Bus frequency (from schedule or planned future service)
• Average bus speed (from schedule or estimated using Guide’s methods for
future service)
• Average passenger load (can be simplified to: open seats, all seats filled, many
standees)
• Pedestrian LOS (already calculated)
29
Transit Analysis: Input Data

Bus frequency (bus/h) Known (6/4 bus/h) (before/after)
Before: Scheduled speed (6 mph)
Average bus speed (mph)
After: Calculated (7.5 mph for local buses)
Before: Known (125%)
Average passenger load factor (p/seat)
After: Modeled (70% for local buses)
Average excess wait time (min) Default (3 min)
Percentage of stops with shelter (%) Known (0%/0%)
Percentage of stops with bench (%) Known (0%/0%)
Average passenger trip length (mi) Default (3.7 mi)
Pedestrian LOS score (decimal) Calculated: (1.98/0.88)
30
Transit Analysis: Headway Factor Calculation
 headway factor
 h = average bus headway = 60 / frequency
Ridership at this stop is estimated to be 3.15 times higher than if the stop was
served only once an hour
31
Transit Analysis: Perceived Travel Time Rate (1)
 PTTR = perceived travel time rate (min/mi)
• a1 = travel time perception factor

 1.00 (open seats)
 1.17 (all seats filled, a few standees)
– Seated passengers perceive trip to take 11% longer than the
actual travel time, on average
– Standing passengers perceive trip to take 90% longer
 1.42 (full/nearly full bus)
• IVTTR = in-vehicle travel time rate
= (60 min/h) / average bus speed
32
• a2 = travel time coefficient for excess wait time

 Excess wait time is the average time spent waiting for a bus after the scheduled
arrival time
 Default = 2.0 (i.e., unanticipated wait time is perceived to be twice as long as the
actual time)
• EWTR = excess wait time rate
 Excess wait time (min) / average trip length (mi)
 Default excess wait time = 3 min
 Default trip length = 3.7 mi, or use (passenger miles / passenger boardings) for the
transit agency from the National Transit Database
33
• ATR = amenity time rate

 Perceived wait time reduction due to amenities (min) / average trip length (mi)
 Wait time reduction due to bench = 0.1 min
 Wait time reduction due to shelter = 0.3 min
 Bench and shelter values can be combined
Scheduled bus speed is 6 mph, passengers boarding in this

segment perceive it as 3.8 mph
34
Transit Analysis: Perceived Travel Time Factor
 perceived travel time factor
• e = ridership elasticity for changes in travel time = –0.4

• BTTR = base travel time rate = 4.0 min/mi usually
35
Transit Analysis: TLOS Calculation
 transit wait–ride score
 TLOS = transit level of service score
TLOS Score LOS

≤2.00 A
>2.00–2.75 B
>2.75–3.50 C
>3.50–4.25 D
>4.25–5.00 E
>5.00 F
36
Your Turn
8' 5' 6' 12' 11' 11' 12' 6' 5' 8'
 How is transit LOS affected BUS
ONLY
by the proposed project in the

northbound direction?
 Changes for “after” calculations:
• BRT buses will not stop in this section
• 4 local buses per hour will stop
• Future average local bus speed = 7.5 mph ONLY
BUS
• Average future local bus load factor = 70%
37
Transit LOS Inputs: “After” Condition
 a1 = 1.00 (open seats)

 IVTTR = (60 / 7.5) = 8 min/mi
 a2 = 2.0 (default)
 EWTR = (3 / 3.7) = 0.81 min/mi (default)
 ATR = 0 (no shelter or bench at stop in this section)
 PLOS = 0.88 (from previous exercise)
38
Transit LOS Score and Letter: “After” Condition
TLOS Score LOS

≤2.00 A
>2.00–2.75 B
>2.75–3.50 C
>3.50–4.25 D
>4.25–5.00 E
>5.00 F
39
Multimodal Results: 48th to 49th St. Northbound, PM Peak
Sevice Measure Before Value (LOS) After Value (LOS)

Auto speed 19.8 mph (C) 13.8 mph (E)
Pedestrian LOS 1.98 (B) 0.88 (A)
Bicycle LOS 5.13 (E) –3.99 (A)
Transit LOS 2.78 (C) 3.12 (C)
 Auto speed (calculations shown in Case Study 2) drops by 6 mph (LOS C to

LOS E)
 Pedestrian LOS improves from LOS B to LOS A
 Bicycle LOS improves from LOS E to LOS A
 Transit LOS score worsens, but stays at LOS C
40
Northbound Facility Results, PM Peak
 Calculations shown in Case Study 2 in the Guide

• Average auto speed drops from 11.0 mph to 5.9 mph
(LOS F to LOS F)
• Pedestrian LOS improves from LOS B or C to LOS A
• Bicycle LOS improves from LOS D or E to LOS A
• Transit LOS improves from LOS C to LOS B in section with BRT stop, generally
stays at LOS C elsewhere
 A closer look is required at the 51st Street intersection to address over-
capacity conditions for automobiles
41
Truck LOS Model
 Model developed through NCFRP

Project 41 and incorporated into
the Guide (Section P)
 Model reflects truck operations quality
from the freight shipper perspective
• Truck travel speed
• Truck travel time reliability
• Tolls
• Railroad crossing presence
• Ability of trucks with normal legal weight and dimensions
to use the roadway
42
Truck LOS: Input Data Requirements
 Required inputs
• Truck free-flow speed
• Average truck speed
• Facility location (Lower 48 states/Alaska/Hawaii)
 Desirable inputs (can be defaulted or estimated)
• Probability of on-time arrival
• Truck friendliness index
• Average truck toll
43
Truck LOS: Input Data

Truck free-flow speed (mph) Must be provided
Average truck speed (mph) Must be provided
Average truck toll ($/mi) Default = $0.00
Default = 1.00 (no truck restrictions, no
Truck friendliness index railroad crossings)
Truck LOS = F if TFI ≤ 0.60
Facility location Lower 48 states/Alaska/Hawaii
Optional direct input, or estimated from
Probability of on-time arrival (POTA)
other inputs
50th percentile travel time index Optional for calculating POTA
95th percentile travel time index Optional for calculating POTA
44
Truck Utility Function (1)
 Utility function reflects facility’s utility for truck shipments

 Ideal conditions from a truck perspective:
• Usable by trucks with legal size and weight loads
• No at-grade railroad crossings
• Provides reliable truck travel at truck free-flow speeds
• Low cost (i.e., no tolls)
45
 A = weighting parameter for reliability, sensitive to

shipping distance = 5 / ASL
 ASL = average shipment length (mi)
• Lower 48 states: 200 mi
• Alaska: 280 mi
• Hawaii: 30 mi
 POTA = probability of on-time arrival (decimal)
46
Probability of On-Time Arrival Estimation Methods
 Determine directly from travel time distribution

• Cumulative percentage of trips
with a TTI
 ≤1.33 (freeways)
 ≤3.33 (urban streets)
 Estimate using Equation 194

in the Guide
• Requires 50th, 95th percentile TTIs
• 95th percentile TTI must be > 1.33 or 3.33 (fwys/urban st.)
 Estimate using Exhibit 119 in the Guide
• Lookup table with the truck TTI as the input
47
 B = weighting parameter for shipment time, sensitive to

free-flow speed = −0.32 / FFS
 FFS = truck free-flow speed (mph)
 TTI = truck travel time index
= FFS / average truck speed
 C = weighting parameter for shipment cost = −0.01
 Toll/mi = truck toll rate ($/mi), a truck volume–weighted
average for all truck types
48
 D = weighting parameter for truck friendliness = 0.03

 TFI = truck friendliness index
• 1 = no constraints or obstacles to legal
truck load and vehicle usage of facility
• 0 = no trucks can use facility
• Can be reduced below 1 to reflect weight,
width, height, length, turning radius, and cargo limits,
and for presence of at-grade railroad crossings
• TFI ≤ 0.6 produces LOS F regardless of other input values
49
Truck LOS Calculation
Truck LOS index as % of ideal conditions
Class I Class II Class III

LOS (Primary Freight Facility) (Secondary Facility) (Tertiary Facility)
A ≥90% ≥85% ≥80%
B ≥80% ≥75% ≥70%
C ≥70% ≥65% ≥60%
D ≥60% ≥55% ≥50%
E ≥50% ≥45% ≥40%
F <50% <45% <40%
Interstate freeway Urban principal arterial Industrial & truck

facility
Rural principal arterial Major intermodal facility connector access routes
50
Truck LOS Example: Input Data
 Urban interstate freeway, p.m. peak hour

• Truck free-flow speed: 55 mph
• Average truck speed: 45 mph
• Metro area in the lower 48 states
• No tolls
• No truck restrictions
51
Truck LOS Example: TTI and POTA
 TTI = free-flow speed / average truck speed = 55 / 45

TTI = 1.22
 Use Exhibit 119 to estimate POTA
• By interpolation, POTA = 65.7%
Facility
Type Truck TTI 95% TTI POTA
1.05 1.18 99.83%
1.10 1.35 93.77%
Rural Highways
1.15 1.51 81.16%

Freeways and
1.20 1.67 69.34%

1.25 1.82 60.20%
1.30 1.96 53.33%
1.35 2.10 48.04%
1.40 2.23 43.86%
52
Truck LOS Example: Truck Utility Function
53
Truck LOS Example: Truck LOS
 (LOS E)

A ≥90% ≥85% ≥80%
B ≥80% ≥75% ≥70%
C ≥70% ≥65% ≥60%
D ≥60% ≥55% ≥50%
E ≥50% ≥45% ≥40%
F <50% <45% <40%
54
Your Turn
 Calculate the truck LOS for the following facility

• Urban street providing access to container port
• Truck FFS: 35 mph
• Average truck speed (including intersection delays): 25 mph
• No tolls
• No truck weight, dimension, or cargo restrictions
• One railroad crossing
 See student notes for TFI adjustments used locally
• Location in lower 48 states
55
Calculation Results
 TTI = 35 / 25 = 1.40
 From Exhibit 119, POTA = 99.9%
 From student notes, TFI = 1.00 − 0.05 = 0.95
 (LOS B)

A ≥90% ≥85% ≥80%
B ≥80% ≥75% ≥70%
C ≥70% ≥65% ≥60%
D ≥60% ≥55% ≥50%
E ≥50% ≥45% ≥40%
F <50% <45% <40%
56
Resources
 You have now seen that a multimodal analysis of an urban street is

possible using pen-and-paper
 For multiple intersections or modes, implementing the methods in a
spreadsheet will be more efficient
 Computational engines are available on
HCM Volume 4 for:
• Signalized intersections
• Urban streets
 Auto
 Bicycle, pedestrian, transit
• Truck LOS
57
Other Possible Applications
 Section O of the Guide also demonstrates:

• Estimating future bus speeds
• Estimating a street or stop’s bus capacity
• Estimating pedestrian and bicycle delay at traffic signals
58
Discussion and Questions
59

Urban Street Analysis: Multimodal Operations

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

Urban Street Analysis: Multimodal Operations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 6

Urban Street Analysis:

 Proposed 14-mile bus rapid transit (BRT) route

 The study facility consists of ½ mile of Telegraph Avenue between Shattuck

 Before: Two general-purpose travel lanes, on-street parking, and sidewalks

48th Street ONLY

 How do you expect quality of service to be affected as a result of the

 Evaluate performance by mode for existing and proposed conditions

 Models developed through NCHRP

 Planning method uses the HCM’s “link” method

Source: Adapted from Exhibit 99

𝑃𝐿𝑂𝑆=−1.2276×ln ([ 𝑓 𝐿𝑉 ×𝑊 𝑇 ]+ [ 0.5 ×𝑊 1]+[ 0.5 ×%𝑂𝑆𝑃 ]+[ 𝑓 𝐵 ×𝑊 𝐵] +[ 𝑓 𝑆𝑊 ×𝑊 𝑠] )

• “Before” conditions shown in red

𝑃𝐿𝑂𝑆=−1.2276×ln ([ 𝑓 𝐿𝑉 ×𝑊 𝑇 ]+ [ 0.5 ×𝑊 1]+[ 0.5 ×%𝑂𝑆𝑃 ]+[ 𝑓 𝐵 ×𝑊 𝐵] +[ 𝑓 𝑆𝑊 ×𝑊 𝑠] )

𝑃𝐿𝑂𝑆=−1.2276×ln ([ 𝑓 𝐿𝑉 ×𝑊 𝑇 ]+ [ 0.5 ×𝑊 1]+[ 0.5 ×%𝑂𝑆𝑃 ]+[ 𝑓 𝐵 ×𝑊 𝐵] +[ 𝑓 𝑆𝑊 ×𝑊 𝑠] )

 From Exhibit 100 (page 142), ped LOS = B

 Planning method uses the HCM’s “link” method

only included in width when there

 We = Wv – (0.1 × %OSP) [if Wl < 4 ft]

 Wv = Wt [V > 160 vph or divided street]

 From Exhibit 103 (page 146), bicycle LOS = E

BLOS Score LOS

 Calculate the pedestrian and bicycle LOS in the “after” condition

𝑃𝐿𝑂𝑆=−1.2276×ln ([ 𝑓 𝐿𝑉 ×𝑊 𝑇 ]+ [ 0.5 ×𝑊 1]+[ 0.5 ×%𝑂𝑆𝑃 ]+[ 𝑓 𝐵 ×𝑊 𝐵] +[ 𝑓 𝑆𝑊 ×𝑊 𝑠] )

𝑃𝐿𝑂𝑆=−1.2276×ln ([ 1.96×17 ]+[ 0.5×5 ]+[ 0.5×0 ]+[5.37×5 ]+[ 3.6×8 ])

BLOS = −3.99 (LOS A)

 Model developed through NCHRP

 Planning method uses the HCM/TCQSM method

Input Data (units) How Obtained

 h = average bus headway = 60 / frequency

 PTTR = perceived travel time rate (min/mi)

• a1 = travel time perception factor

 PTTR = perceived travel time rate (min/mi)

• a2 = travel time coefficient for excess wait time

 PTTR = perceived travel time rate (min/mi)

• ATR = amenity time rate

Scheduled bus speed is 6 mph, passengers boarding in this

 perceived travel time factor

• e = ridership elasticity for changes in travel time = –0.4

 transit wait–ride score

 TLOS = transit level of service score

TLOS Score LOS

by the proposed project in the

• Average future local bus load factor = 70%

 a1 = 1.00 (open seats)

 PLOS = 0.88 (from previous exercise)

TLOS Score LOS

Sevice Measure Before Value (LOS) After Value (LOS)

 Auto speed (calculations shown in Case Study 2) drops by 6 mph (LOS C to

 Calculations shown in Case Study 2 in the Guide

 Model developed through NCFRP

Input Data (units) How Obtained

 Utility function reflects facility’s utility for truck shipments

 A = weighting parameter for reliability, sensitive to

 Determine directly from travel time distribution

 Estimate using Equation 194

 B = weighting parameter for shipment time, sensitive to

 D = weighting parameter for truck friendliness = 0.03

Truck LOS index as % of ideal conditions

Class I Class II Class III

Interstate freeway Urban principal arterial Industrial & truck

 Urban interstate freeway, p.m. peak hour

 TTI = free-flow speed / average truck speed = 55 / 45