1 / 20

Multimodal LOS For Urban Streets

Multimodal LOS For Urban Streets. Richard Dowling – Dowling Associates. Multimodal LOS Philosophy. Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Analysis for Urban Streets Each urban street right-of-way is shared by 4 major types of users: Automobile Drivers Transit Passengers Bicyclists

kat
Télécharger la présentation

Multimodal LOS For Urban Streets

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Multimodal LOS For Urban Streets Richard Dowling – Dowling Associates

  2. Multimodal LOS Philosophy • Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Analysis for Urban Streets • Each urban street right-of-way is shared by 4 major types of users: • Automobile Drivers • Transit Passengers • Bicyclists • Pedestrians • The urban street should serve all users

  3. Definition of MMLOS • MMLOS is the degree to which the urban street design and operations meets the traveling needs of each user type. • Four level of service grades for each street: • Auto LOS, Transit LOS, Bicycle LOS, Pedestrian LOS • MMLOS is a report card, not a single grade. Bancroft Avenue Level of Service User TypeAM Pk HrPM Pk Hr Auto C E Transit B C Bicycle D C Pedestrian C D

  4. NCHRP 3-70 Research Project • Objective: To develop a scientific basis for evaluating multimodal LOS on urban streets • 4-year, $1.1 million project • U.S. modal experts • Dr. Aimee Flannery, George Mason University • Dr. Nagui Rouphail, North Carolina State University • Bruce Landis, Sprinkle Consulting • Theo Petritsch, Sprinkle Consulting • Paul Ryus, Kittelson Associates

  5. Data Collection • Selected and shot video clips of 90 typical street cross sections from point of view of auto driver, bicycle rider, and pedestrian. • Showed the clips to 120 people in video labs in four cities. • College Station, Texas • New Haven, Connecticut • San Francisco, California • Chicago, Illinois • Asked to rate each clip’s trip experience from “best” to “worst.”

  6. What about Transit? • Did on-board surveys in Miami, Baltimore, Portland, and San Francisco • No matter how bad the service, everybody on board the bus liked it. • Used mode choice survey results and known patronage elasticities to construct transit LOS model

  7. Distribution of LOS Responses

  8. Factors Affecting Auto LOS • Average Travel Speed for Through Traffic • Number of Stops per Mile • These two factors are in turn influenced by: • Demand, capacity, posted speed limit, number of lanes, signal timing, coordination, interference from other users (bus, bike, pedestrian) • 4 Models to Test

  9. Factors Affecting Transit LOS • Frequency of Service • Speed of Service • Passenger Load • Reliability • Accessibility • Bus StopAmenities

  10. Factors Influencing Bicycle LOS • Segment Experience • Intersection Experience • Driveway Interference

  11. Bicyclist Segment LOS • Vehicle Traffic Volume in Outside (Right) Lane • Percent Trucks • Vehicle Speeds • Lateral Separation From Vehicles • Average effective paved width • Outside lane, bike lane, shoulder lane (if no parking) • Discounted for on-street parking • Pavement Quality (1-5)

  12. Bicycle Intersection LOS • Vehicle Traffic Volume in Outside (Right) Lane • Percent Trucks • Vehicle Speeds • Lateral Separation From Vehicles • Width of outside lane plus bike lane • Signalized Intersection Cross-Street Width

  13. Bicycle Driveway Conflicts • Density of unsignalized intersections and driveways per mile • Right-hand side of street.

  14. Factors Influencing Pedestrian LOS • Segment Experience • Travel along segment • Mid-block crossing • Intersection Experience • Pedestrian Density

  15. Pedestrian Segment LOS • Function of: • Vehicle volume in rightmost lane • Vehicle speeds • Lateral separation between vehicles and pedestrians • Barriers (trees, bushes, barricades) • On-Street parking • Presence and width of sidewalk

  16. Pedestrian Intersection LOS • Function of: • Vehicle volumes and speeds • Right turns on red and left turns during “Walk” phase • Right turn channelization islands (pork chops) • Cross-street vehicle traffic and speeds • Lanes on the cross-street • Delay waiting to cross at signal

  17. Ped. Midblock Crossing Difficulty • Can increase or decrease pedestrian LOS by up to 20%. • Factor is related to the minimum of: • Delay waiting for gap in traffic • Delay walking to nearest signalized intersection • Midblock crossing computation can be turned off.

  18. Software Implementation • Now: • Free, unsupported, research quality spreadsheet • Comments welcome • After June 2010 • If/When included in HCM 2010 update • May be included in some commercial quality, supported software (HCS)

  19. Sharing The Street Before After

  20. To Learn More • Final Report: NCHRP Report #616 • http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_616.pdf • User’s Guide: NCHRP Web document 128 • http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w128.pdf • For more information contact: • Rick Dowling, Dowling Associates, Oakland, CA • Phone: 510-839-1742 x 120, rdowling@dowlinginc.com

More Related