Field Test Results of the Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Web-Only Document 158: Field Test Results of the Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets National Cooperative Highway Research Program Richard Dowling Dowling Associates, Inc. Oakland, CA Aimee Flannery George Mason University Fairfax, VA Paul Ryus Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Copenhagen, Denmark Theodore Petritsch Bruce Landis Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. Lutz, FL Nagui Rouphail The Institute for Transportation Research and Education Raleigh, NC Contractor’s Final Report for Phase III of NCHRP Project 3-70 Submitted January 2010 NCHRP

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was sponsored by t he Am erican Associ ation of St ate Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Adm inistration, and was conduct ed i n t he National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is administered by the Transportati on Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for t he aut henticity of t heir m aterials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publ ication for cl assroom and not -for-profit purposes. Permission is given wi th t he underst anding t hat none of t he m aterial will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHW A, FMCSA, FTA, Transit Development Corporation, or AOC endorsement of a particular product, method, or pract ice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this d ocument fo r ed ucational an d n ot-for-profit u ses will give appropriate acknowl edgment of t he source of any repri nted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

Table of Contents  List of Exhibits .................................................................................................... v  Acknowledgments .............................................................................................. vi  Abstract………………………………………………………………………………. . vii Executive Summary ......................................................................................... viii  1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1  Research Objective ........................................................................................................1  The Research Plan..........................................................................................................1  This Report.....................................................................................................................2  2. Field Test Procedures ..................................................................................... 3  Task 0. Amplified Work Plan .......................................................................................3  Task 1. Recruit Volunteer Agencies .............................................................................3  Task 2. Training Session, Selection of Field Test Arterials .........................................3  Task 3. Data Collection.................................................................................................4  Task 4. Analysis ............................................................................................................4  Task 5. Assessment .......................................................................................................6  Task 6. Refinement .......................................................................................................7  3. Results ............................................................................................................. 9  Auto LOS Model............................................................................................................9  Methodology ............................................................................................................9  User Guide ...............................................................................................................9  Transit LOS Model ......................................................................................................11  Methodology ..........................................................................................................11  User Guide .............................................................................................................11  Bicycle LOS Model .....................................................................................................11  Methodology ..........................................................................................................11  User Guide .............................................................................................................12  Pedestrian LOS Model .................................................................................................12  Methodology ..........................................................................................................13  User Guide .............................................................................................................15  Attachments: Agency Workshop and Testing Results ................................. 16  A.  FDOT Test Results ................................................................................. 17  B.  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .................................................................... 19  C.  San Diego, CA ......................................................................................... 25 

Page iv D.  Arlington, VA ........................................................................................... 29  E.  Atlanta, Georgia ...................................................................................... 35  F.  San Antonio, Texas ................................................................................ 41  G.  Boise, Idaho ............................................................................................ 46  H.  Portland, Oregon .................................................................................... 52  I.  Evaluation of Auto LOS Model Results ................................................ 57 

Page v List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Test Agencies ......................................................................................................4  Exhibit 2: Field Test Results ................................................................................................5  Exhibit 3: Parameters for Auto Stops Per Mile Equation ....................................................9  Exhibit 4: Evaluation of Proposed Auto LOS Models.......................................................10 

Page vi Acknowledgments The research reported herein is Phase 3 of NCHRP Project 3-70. It was performed by Dowling Associates, Inc., Oakland, California. Dr. Aimee Flannery of George Mason University conducted the Arlington County, Virginia workshop, assisted in data collection and analysis, and provided advice regarding the performance and assessment of the auto level of service model. Dr. Nagui Rouphail of the North Carolina State University conducted the assessment of the field test results for the auto level of service model. Mr. Paul Ryus, with the assistance of Mark Vandehey, Christopher Tiesler, and Nick Foster, all of Kittelson Associates conducted the Boise, Idaho and Portland, Oregon workshops, and assisted local agency personnel in the data collection and analysis. Mr. Bruce Landis, Mr. Theodore Petritsch, and Peyton McLeod of Sprinkle Consulting, Inc., conducted the Atlanta, Georgia, and San Antonio, Texas workshops. They also assisted local agency personnel in data collection and analysis. They provided advice on the assessment and refinement of the bicycle and pedestrian LOS models. The authors would like to thank the management and staff at the following agencies for participating in the field testing of the NCHRP 3-70 multimodal level of service models. Arlington County, Virginia Atlanta Regional Commission, Georgia City of Boise and ADA County Highway District, Boise, Idaho Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania City of Portland, City of Hillsboro, City of Gresham, Oregon San Antonio-Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization, San Antonio, Texas City of San Diego, California The authors are indebted to the Florida Department of Transportation for funding and hosting their own extensive series of workshops and field tests of the NCHRP 3-70 method by the metropolitan planning organizations of Tallahassee, Tampa, and Orlando, Florida.

Page vii Abstract The objective of the first two phases of NCHRP 3-70 project was to develop and test a framework and enhanced methods for determining levels of service for automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes on urban streets, in particular with respect to the interaction among the modes. Phase 2 resulted in the multimodal level of service method (MMLOS) described in NCHRP Report 616, Multimodal Level of Service for Urban Streets. The objective of phase 3 of NCHRP 3-70 was to field test the MMLOS method with various public agencies around the United States. This Final Report presents the results of this third phase 3 of the research During Phase 3 the MMLOS method was field tested in 10 metropolitan areas of the United States. Public agency staffs were trained on the MMLOS method and it’s implementing software. They assisted in data collection and evaluated the suitability the MMLOS method for use within their agency. Based on the results of these field tests several revisions were made to the spreadsheet software for implementing MMLOS. Additional guidance was provided to deal with conditions encountered in the field that were not anticipated when the original guide, NCHRP Web-Only Document 128, was written. Finally, a few minor modifications to the pedestrian level of service model are recommended to improve its sensitivity to some of the conditions encountered in the field tests.