+ All Categories
Home > Documents > MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

Date post: 05-Apr-2018
Category:
Upload: glen-chua
View: 228 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend

of 51

Transcript
  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    1/51

    Made possible by funding fromthe Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    Multimodal Level of

    A Guide to Incorporating All Modes of Transportation intoLocal Jurisdictions Roadway Performance Measurements

    Produced by

    Service in King County

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    2/51

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    3/51

    table o contents

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    Contents

    Introduction 5

    Overview 5intrOductiOn tO MultiMOdal level Of Service 5

    the cOntentS Of thiS Guide 7

    Overview o Level o Service 8

    wh at iS lev el Of Ser vi ce? 8

    hiStOry Of level Of Service 9

    traditiOnal lOS trade-OffS 10

    Local Guidance 13

    waSh inG tO n Stat e Gr Ow th Ma na Ge Me nt ac t: lO S an d cO ncu rre nc y re qu ire Me nt S 13

    KinG cOunty: cOuntywide level Of Service fraMewOrK GuidinG PrinciPleS 15

    MOvinG tOward a MultiMOdal lOS and cOncurrency fraMewOrK in KinG cOunty 15

    caSe Study: city Of KirKland 16

    caSe Study: city Of Bellevue 17caSe Study: city Of redMOnd 20

    Mult imodal Level o Service Models 23

    Overview 23

    hiGhway caPacity Manual 23

    hiGhway caPacity Manual: 2010 25

    fdOtS quality/level Of Service handBOOK 33

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    4/51

    table o contents

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    tranSit caPacity and quality Of Service Manual 35

    Bicycle level Of Service MOdel 36

    PedeStrian level Of Service MOdel 37

    SuMMary 37

    Works Cited 39

    Appendix 41

    exaMPle lOS StandardS: cOMMunitieS PuttinG PreventiOn tO wOrK (cPPw) citieS 41

    nchrP 3-70 (rePOrt 616): MultiMOdal level Of Service analySiS fOr urBan StreetS 43

    hcM 2010 MOdel equatiOnS 49

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    5/51

    5

    5

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    1.0 introduction

    Introduction

    Overview

    Introduction to Multimodal Level o Service

    What is Multimodal Level o Service?

    Standards versus Measures

    Level o Service and Concurrency

    The Contents o this Guide

    Overview

    As communities within Washington state and across the country recognize

    the importance o passing and implementing Complete Streets policies,

    there is a need to understand the inconsistencies within each communitys

    transportation planning and analysis ramework. One such barrier toward

    creating a more balanced transportation system comes in the orm o the

    traditional transportation analysis and level o service (LOS) measures and

    standards adopted by individual jurisdictions.

    In general terms, LOS is a classication system used to describe the quality

    o the mobility provided by a transportation system. It is an alphabeticalgrading system that provides a measurement o the number o vehicles a

    roadway can accommodate over a given period o time. The concept o LOS

    has been used by trac and transportation engineers or nearly 50 years to

    describe conditions or automobile travel on existing or uture roadways.

    Until recently, transportation engineering and planning in the United States

    has ocused primarily around the movement o the automobile. Roadways

    were designed and subsequently evaluated based on their perormance rom

    the perspective o an automobile driver. LOS became the widely accepted

    methodology or measuring the perormance o such roadways, which worked in

    the avor o motor vehicle travel, oten at the expense o other roadway users.

    Traditional LOS measures can oten contradict eorts to improve a streets

    unctionality and saety or all users. For example, improving the unctionality

    o a street to better serve bicyclists and pedestrians may result in a lower

    vehicle level o service or that roadway, and thereore may not be acceptable

    within the communitys adopted LOS standards. Meanwhile, improving the

    LOS or a roadway, under a traditional LOS ramework, would likely mean

    adding roadway capacity, which oten results in increased automobile

    speeds, trac volumes and other actors that have been shown to decrease

    saety or bicyclists and pedestrians. Without LOS measures and standards

    in place that allow or all modes o transportation to be evaluated and

    considered in transportation planning and analysis, adding roadway capacity,

    or widening the roadway, would be seen only as a positive mitigation.

    intrOductiOn tO MultiMOdal level Of Service

    With increasing attention toward public health, local economies, livable

    communities and the environment, and increased emphasis on the use o

    transit, walking and bicycling, the traditional approach to trac operations

    analysis should no longer be viewed as eective. Moreover, without LOS

    standards that allow or trade-os between modes to be evaluated, the

    ability or communities to und and build transit and nonmotorized projects

    can be compromised in the event that it reduces the LOS or motor vehicles

    (Milam).

    In recent years, there has been a shit away rom considering only the

    automobile as a mode o travel when designing urban streets. Moreattention is being placed on street designs that accommodate all users a

    Complete Streets approach. Multimodal level o service measures and

    standards the basis or this Guide are essential as communities look to

    evaluate trade-os to each mode o transportation when designing streets.

    Transportation policies, including the approach to trac analysis, should align

    with the communitys vision. Moving toward a multimodal LOS ramework

    is important as communities seek a more balanced and sustainable

    transportation system. Adopting a multimodal LOS ramework can provide

    communities with the data needed to make inormed decisions about modalimpacts when evaluating roadway designs.

    5

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    6/51

    6

    6

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    1.0 introduction

    w s Mmo l o S?

    Multimodal LOS standards and measures are based on the person-capacity

    rather than automobile-capacity o a transportation system. Measuring

    multimodal LOS is a complex process given the degree o interaction

    between modes, but there are existing models and application guides toassist agencies in calculating multimodal LOS. The 2010 Highway Capacity

    Manual (HCM), published in 2011, provides a comprehensive ramework or

    evaluating multimodal LOS. This is discussed urther in Chapter 4.0, along

    with other models used across the country.

    A multimodal LOS ramework provides an analytical tool or cities to use

    when looking at trade-os to each roadway user group (See Table 1 below)

    and to support decision-making around the communitys vision. For

    example, eorts to improve LOS or vehicles might mean adding capacity in

    the orm o additional vehicle lanes and wider intersections. Being able todetermine the impacts to other modes through a multimodal LOS calculation

    in this scenario might indicate to the decision makers that adding automobile

    capacity is not the best solution to support the communitys vision.

    Table 1: Example output chart: Multimodal LOS Framework

    Mode Four-lane cross-section, nobicycle lanes

    Three-lane cross-section,bicycle lanes, centerturn-lane

    Auto C C

    Bicycle F D

    Pedestrian E DTransit D D

    Conceptual

    The objective o this Guide is to provide resources and examples o

    multimodal LOS models, and to illustrate the importance o adopting

    multimodal analytical tools and measures. Ultimately, however, it is up to

    each community to decide what is acceptable in terms o LOS standards and

    mitigation measures. The communitys adopted LOS standards should align

    with the vision and values o that community. For instance, i a communitywants to improve walkability in its downtown core, the LOS standards should

    refect this goal. Some communities have approached this by allowing lower

    automobile LOS in certain areas, like commercial districts and urban villages.

    Ss ss Mss

    One clarication that should be made is in the use o the terms measuresand standards. When reerring to multimodal LOS measures, we are

    reerring to the analytical methods or calculating the quality and level o

    service provided to users o the transportation system, such as the methods

    recommended in the HCM. This Guide ocuses primarily on measures.

    When reerencing multimodal LOS standards, we are reerring to the policy

    rameworks adopted by communities or acceptable LOS scores. For

    instance, a community might adopt a policy that allows or an automobile

    LOS o F in its downtown core, as long as bicycle, pedestrian and transit

    LOS are at C or better. Adopting these standards should align with the

    communitys vision.

    l o S co

    Throughout this Guide, the term concurrency will also oten be used in

    describing LOS approaches and strategies. Washington states Growth

    Management Act (GMA) contains a provision requiring local jurisdictions to

    have in place or to have unded necessary transportation acilities concurrent

    with new development. The Regulatory Concurrency provision o the GMA is

    intended to provide a link between land use development and transportation

    investment.

    The investment in a communitys transportation system and thereore

    its transportation concurrency is directly infuenced by the communitys

    adopted LOS standards. For example, simply lowering adopted LOS

    standards can allow development to proceed even i it results in increased

    trac congestion. Conversely, in order to maintain the adopted LOS o a

    roadway, a city may be required to devote resources to roadway widening in

    order to permit development. Last, most cities concurrency methodology

    does not support rigorous multimodal analysis due to the lack o reliable

    measures or determining the impact o alternative mode improvements on

    area mobility. While some jurisdictions discussed later in this Guide havetaken steps towards researching and implementing a multimodal concurrency

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    7/51

    77

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    1.0 introduction

    system, many cities still have LOS standards based on measuring vehicular

    capacity o a roadway, which does not explicitly measure or recognize the

    capacity provided by carpools, transit, or nonmotorized acilities.

    The Washington State Legislature has been reviewing and revising the

    GMA Concurrency law and the requirements contained therein or severalyears. In 2005, it authorized a study o multimodal concurrency to analyze

    ways that transit, walking, and other modes could be incorporated into local

    concurrency systems and level o service standards. The impacts o the

    GMA concurrency requirements, as well as local examples o multimodal

    concurrency and LOS research and implementation are discussed in greater

    detail in Chapter 3.0 o this Guide.

    the cOntentS Of thiS Guide

    The purpose o this Guide is to illustrate the importance o utilizing a

    multimodal LOS ramework when evaluating transportation systems and

    roadway designs. Transportation analysis plays an integral role when

    planning under the Growth Management Act; given this, it is critical that

    communities have an adopted LOS ramework that supports the communitys

    vision, whether it is or Complete Streets, improved public health or reduced

    environmental impacts. This Guide provides an overview o the resources

    and tools available or communities to develop and adopt a methodology or

    evaluating the levels o service or all roadway users.

    Chapter 2.0 provides an overview o the level o service concept and a

    brie history o LOS, including how it came to be the prevailing method or

    transportation analysis. This section introduces the Highway Capacity Manual

    and provides a background on the multimodal LOS methods incorporated

    into each edition o the Manual. Last, the chapter describes the potential

    trade-os between traditional LOS measurements and those employed by

    multimodal LOS models.

    Chapter 3.0 describes the Washington State Growth Management Act

    level o service and concurrency requirements and discusses planning

    issues around these requirements. This chapter also gives an overview o

    guiding principles behind the countywide LOS ramework. The remainder

    o the chapter comprises a series o local case studies o communities in

    Washington state that have researched and adopted multimodal rameworks

    or transportation system evaluation. The most notable cities to have gone

    so ar as to research and/or incorporate multimodal LOS models into their

    comprehensive plans and transportation policies are Kirkland, Bellevue, and

    Redmond.

    Chapter 4.0 provides a more detailed and technical overview o the state

    o the practice in multimodal LOS planning and development at a national

    level. The main emphasis o this chapter is on the 2010 Highway Capacity

    Manual(HCM) and the multimodal LOS models the new version oers to

    planners and engineers since the HCMs last iteration in 2000. The HCM

    2010 provides an integrated multimodal LOS ramework that represents

    a comprehensive approach to evaluating trade-os or each user group

    in dierent roadway environments. This chapter also touches on severalother examples o alternative-mode LOS rameworks, such as the Florida

    Department o Transportations Quality/Level of Service Handbook, the

    Transit Quality and Capacity Service Manual, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian

    Level of Servicemodels.

    The Appendix to this Guide contains additional relevant inormation on

    multimodal LOS, including an overview o the National Cooperative Highway

    Research Programs Report 616 (NCHRP Report 616), which inormed the

    multimodal LOS methods incorporated in the HCM 2010, as well as an

    overview o the multimodal LOS equations included in the HCM 2010.

    The organization o this Guide is such that the user can easily locate whatever

    might be desired without running across too much overlapping inormation

    or redundancy. In short, Chapter 2.0 is an overview o traditional LOS and

    an introduction to multimodal LOS; Chapter 3.0 eatures local applications

    and case studies; and Chapter 4.0 is a detailed description o models being

    used across the United States, with special emphasis on the HCM 2010. The

    Appendix contains additional resources.

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    8/51

    882.0 overview o level o service

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    Overview o Level o Service

    What is Level o Service?

    Why Measure LOS?

    History o Level o Service

    Highway Capacity Manual

    Traditional LOS Trade-os

    wh at iS le ve l Of Se rvi ce?

    In general terms, level o service (LOS) is a classication system used to

    describe the quality o the mobility provided by a transportation system. It isan alphabetical grading system that provides a measurement o the number

    o vehicles a roadway can accommodate over a given period o time (Bucher,

    Willis & Ratli Corporation, 2006). The concept o LOS has been used by

    trac and transportation engineers or nearly 50 years to describe conditions

    or automobile travel on existing or uture roadways (Milam). The denition

    or LOS used by the Transportation Research Board in the Highway Capacity

    Manual(2000) is:

    Level o service (LOS) is a quality measure describing operational

    conditions within a trac stream, generally in terms o such servicemeasures as speed and travel time, reedom to maneuver, trac

    interruptions, and comort and convenience.

    There are a variety o measures that LOS can be based on; most common are

    congestion and vehicle delay. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has

    developed and revised LOS standards or trac congestion. The traditional

    measurement is based on a volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. The Highway

    Capacity Manual(HCM) provides a specic methodology, widely used, or

    estimating average vehicular delay at intersections. Delay is typically dened

    as the dierence between actual travel time and travel time given no othervehicles or trac control devices.

    The Highway Capacity Manualdenes six levels o service thresholds, based

    on average through-vehicle speed, ranging rom LOS A to LOS F. While

    research has concluded that travelers perceive less than six levels o service,

    the A through F grading system has been retained to provide a greater

    range o perormance levels upon which agencies can base their decisions.

    Level o service ratings are generally classied as ollows (Transportation

    Research Board, 2008):

    LOS A: Low volume, high speeds, no delay. High reedom to select

    desired speed and maneuver within trac stream.

    LOS B: Stable fow with reasonable reedom to select speed.

    LOS C: Stable fow, but speed and maneuverability are aected by the

    presence o others and require care on the part o the driver.

    LOS D: Approaches unstable fow. Speed and maneuverability areseverely restricted. Small additions to trac fow generally will cause

    operational problems.

    LOS E: Represents operating conditions at or near capacity o the

    highway. Low speeds. Freedom to maneuver is extremely dicult. Any

    incident can cause extensive queuing.

    LOS F: Represents orced-fow operation at very low speeds. Operations

    are characterized by stop-and-go trac. Vehicles may progress at

    reasonable speeds or several hundred eet or more, and then berequired to stop (Level o Service Denitions).

    One common concern with the A through F ramework is how the LOS

    categories can be perceived in similar ways to school report card grades.

    Under this perception, LOS A would be seen as the desired goal; however,

    achieving LOS A or a roadway wouldnt necessarily be a desirable

    outcome or most transportation systems. This would mean a roadway with

    little to no use, or a roadway designed with signicantly more capacity than

    necessary.

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    9/51

    992.0 overview o level o service

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    w Ms lOS?

    LOS measures can help communities identiy transportation system

    deciencies and orecast uture transportation needs. LOS measures

    specically multimodal LOS measures can provide inormation or

    communities as they evaluate various Complete Streets designs.1 1

    Measuring LOS helps a jurisdiction to:

    Provide a consistent, systematic evaluation o existing conditions.

    Produce results in terms that can be easily understood by

    transportation proessionals and the general public.

    Provide an objective method or identiying and prioritizing

    transportation system improvements.

    Allow or evaluation o improvement types and cross-sections

    (Parks, 2011).

    In 1994, the Municipal Research and Services Center o Washington states

    Level of Service Standards Guide(Washington, 1994) outlined the ollowing

    reasons or establishing LOS standards:

    Provide a benchmark or evaluating transportation service

    deciencies.

    Dene what new public acilities and services will be needed to

    support new development.

    Provide a basis or assuring that existing services are maintained

    as new development is served.

    Provide a benchmark or monitoring progress toward meeting

    growth management and public service goals.

    1 Complete streets are roadways designed and operated to enable sae, attractive and comortable access andtravel or all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transportation users o all ages andabilities.

    Alert public ocials to opportunities or improved eciency and

    savings.

    Can and should move beyond quantitative measures and provide

    measures or the quality o acilities and services provided.

    Provide an opportunity or neighboring jurisdictions to

    coordinate LOS standards to assure consistency.

    With recognition that multiple modes share the roadway environment,

    the LOS measures used by a jurisdiction should look comprehensively at

    the roadway perormance rom each users perspective, including cyclists

    and pedestrians. Without a holistic evaluation ramework, the communitys

    transportation planning and design will likely be biased toward a single

    mode.

    hiStOry Of level Of Service

    Level o service is a ramework that transportation proessionals have used

    or several decades to evaluate existing conditions or a mode o travel in a

    transportation system. The concept o Level o service was rst introduced in

    the 1965 version o the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM), published by the

    Highway Research Board (HRB) and authored by the Committee on Highway

    Capacity. The original denition o level o service, as it pertains to highways,

    was given in the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual(HRB, 1965) as ollows:

    Level o service is a qualitative measure o the eect o a number

    o actors, which include speed and travel time, trac interruptions,

    reedom to maneuver, saety, driving comort and convenience, and

    operating costs.

    LOS gained popularity given the accessibility o the methodologies and the

    A through F rating system.

    Over the years, multimodal LOS models have evolved to what is now

    incorporated in the HCM 2010, an integrated multimodal LOS modelor urban streets. Recent research has inormed the development o the

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    10/51

    10102.0 overview o level o service

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    multimodal LOS ramework in the HCM 2010 to incorporate multiple

    actors and allow or more service-quality actors to be considered. Other

    multimodal models, initially developed in the 1990s (and discussed in

    Chapter 4.0) include the Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS(developed by Sprinkle

    Consulting) and the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. These

    models have been applied in jurisdictions across the United States.

    hg cp M

    The Highway Capacity Manualis a widely-used reerence manual containing

    concepts, guidelines and computational procedures or calculating the

    capacity and quality o service o various transportation acilities: reeways;

    highways; arterial roads; roundabouts; signalized and unsignalized

    intersections; and rural highways (Wikipedia). The HCM also includes

    inormation about transit, pedestrians and bicyclists. Five editions o the

    HCM have been published, with LOS procedures evolving through eachedition.

    The 1950 HCM was a product o a collaborative eort between the Highway

    Research Boards Committee on Highway Capacity and the Bureau o Public

    Roads (now known as the Federal Highway Administration). The 1950 HCM

    was the rst international manual ocused on the undamentals o highway

    capacity (Transportation Research Board, 2010). Subsequent editions o the

    HCM were published in 1965, 1985, 2000 and most recently, 2010.

    The 1965 HCM introduced the concept o level o service. It included a short

    chapter on bus transit in addition to the standard automobile LOS measuresand was the rst edition to introduce the widely adopted A through F

    letter scale (McLeod). In the 1985 HCM, short chapters on pedestrian and

    bicycle LOS were incorporated, as well as an expanded chapter on transit.

    The bicycle chapter ocused primarily on bicycle impacts to vehicular capacity

    and the pedestrian chapter provided a sidewalk and street corner LOS based

    on average space per pedestrian (Vandehey & Bessman, Multimodal Level o

    Service in the 2010 HCM).

    Automobile LOS methodologies in the HCM 2000 estimated LOS or

    intersections and roadway segments based on the ratio o vehicle demand tocapacity o the roadway termed V/C ratio or on the average seconds o

    delay to vehicles at intersections. The LOS set orth in the HCM 2000 is the

    most widely used measure o transportation acility perormance.

    The HCM 2000 provided expanded chapters on pedestrians, bicycles and

    transit. Pedestrian LOS measures included space per pedestrian, average

    delay and average travel speed. The expanded bicycle chapter includedmethods or o-street paths and bicycle lanes at trac signals and along

    urban streets. The bicycle LOS measures included average travel speed,

    average delay and hindrance. The revised transit LOS included requency,

    hours o service, passenger load and reliability. The HCM 2000 methods

    ocus on capacity and delay; however, research (National Cooperative

    Highway Research Project 3-70) inorming the HCM 2010 concluded that

    capacity and delay are not the key actors to be considered when evaluating

    quality o service. Other actors such as automobile volumes are o critical

    importance to bicycle and pedestrian levels o service.

    Up until the HCM 2010, pedestrian and bicycle LOS measures generally

    refected a trac engineers perspective ocusing on delay, speed and

    demand to capacity. Under these methodologies, a sidewalk with no

    pedestrians using it would likely receive a pedestrian LOS o A, based

    on measures o speed, delay and space; whereas a sidewalk with high

    pedestrian volumes would receive a pedestrian LOS score o E or F.

    The HCM 2010 the most recent edition is the culmination o a multi-

    agency eort between the Transportation Research Board (TRB), the

    American Association o State Highway and Transportation Ocials(AASHTO), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The approach

    taken in the HCM 2010 was to ocus on the travelers perspective and to

    allow trade-os between modes to be evaluated. It is the rst edition to

    provide an integrated multimodal level o service methodology. Chapter 4.0

    provides a detailed description o the LOS measures included in the HCM

    2010.

    traditiOnal lOS trade-OffS

    As we now know, the traditional methodology or computing LOS ocuseson the mobility o automobiles. When standards are adopted around these

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    11/51

    11112.0 overview o level o service

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    measures, the impacts to other modes o transportation are not at the

    oreront o transportation decisions and practices. Transportation planning

    processes within communities typically include adopting minimum LOS

    standards (such as LOS C or D). I roadways exceed these ratings, they

    are generally considered to ail. Mitigation or roadways with ailing LOS

    ratings typically comes in the orm o adding capacity, ultimately creating

    wider roadways and intersections. Without a multimodal LOS ramework

    in place to evaluate the impacts to other modes o transportation in these

    situations, the roadway widening may adversely impact the saety and

    desirability o using other modes o transportation in the corridor.

    There are many critiques to the traditional LOS approach, but most relevant

    to this Guide are the incongruities between an automobile-ocused LOS and

    the promotion o Complete Streets.

    Additional critiques to the traditional LOS approach include:

    Traditional LOS measures driver comort and convenience. Using

    an automobile LOS without evaluating LOS or other modes

    ails to consider relationships and conficts among other modes.

    In eect, this prioritizes motor-vehicle travel and speed at the

    expense o non-motorized travel.

    Traditional LOS analysis does not refect the ability or roadway

    rechannelizations to reduce trac and support modal shit. In

    research (conducted by Sally Cairns) evaluating the 70 case

    studies o beore and ater impacts where roadway capacity

    was reduced, ndings indicated that trac volumes decreased

    on average by 21.9 percent on the aected roadway, as well as

    on alternative routes (Bhatia, 2005).

    Traditional mitigation or improving LOS is adding roadway

    capacity. Widening roadways and intersections reduces the

    saety or bicyclists and pedestrians by increasing exposure time

    at intersections and acilitating aster vehicle speeds.

    Traditional LOS rames transportation problems as trac

    congestion rather than problems such as mobility or non-drivers

    or environmental, health and social costs.

    Traditional LOS ignores the tendency o trac congestion to

    maintain equilibrium. A common solution to improving LOS is

    adding capacity, which has been shown to induce travel, urther

    reducing the multimodal opportunities o the respective corridor.

    Transportation research has shown that increasing roadway

    capacity is not an eective long-term strategy or reducing

    roadway congestion as it results in increased trac fow by

    inducing more use o the roadway (EPA, 2001).

    Because LOS policies infuence the size and type o

    transportation inrastructure investment, i jurisdictions have LOS

    standards that require them to maintain a high LOS or their

    roadways, such as LOS C, they can require substantial resource

    allocation or expansion projects. This may be an inecient use

    o public unds; restructuring LOS standards can be particularly

    timely or jurisdictions lacking inrastructure unds (Hilliard &Milam).

    While transportation projects such as bicycle lanes and sidewalk

    widening have positive environmental benets, traditional LOS

    analysis may conclude that these projects result in adverse

    environmental impacts (Bhatia, 2005).

    Traditional LOS measures and standards can disincentivize

    resource-ecient land use and inll development by requiring

    high LOS standards to be maintained in order to permitdevelopment. This can encourage sprawling development

    into areas where development will not result in exceeding the

    adopted LOS standards.

    Traditional LOS does not refect an understanding o the

    relationships between transportation and the environment.

    Increasing LOS or automobiles bears negative environmental

    consequences, such as increased impervious surace, loss o

    riparian habitat and degraded air quality.

    Adopting a multimodalLOS ramework, on the other hand, can supporta communitys vision or creating a more balanced transportation system.

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    12/51

    12122.0 overview o level o service

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    Traditional LOS measures give privilege to motor vehicles and ultimately

    exacerbate the problems associated with increased motor vehicle

    use. Aligning transportation policies with the measures used to analyze

    transportation systems and on which to ultimately base decisions that

    aect all roadway users, bears signicant potential to increase bicycling

    and walking and improve public health and the environment. The benets

    o adopting a multimodal LOS ramework and standards are similar to the

    benets o adopting a Complete Streets policy: both help oster alternative

    modes o transportation in a community while improving public health

    and the environment. Adopting a multimodal LOS gives communities

    the inormation and legal authority to design and implement Complete

    Streets, thereby creating attractive places or people to engage in active

    transportation, reducing air quality impacts, and supporting community

    cohesion and livability.

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    13/51

    13133.0 local guidance

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    Local Guidance

    Washington State Growth Management Act: LOS and

    Concurrency Requirements

    The Issues

    King County: Countywide Level o Service Framework Guiding

    Principles

    Moving Toward a Multimodal LOS and Concurrency Framework

    in King County

    Case Study: City o Kirkland

    Case Study: City o Bellevue

    Case Study: City o Redmond

    waShi nG tOn Stat e Gr Ow th Man aG eM en t ac t: lO Sand cOncurrency requireMentS

    In 1990, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) was

    adopted by the Washington State Legislature as a way to manage growth

    across the state and prevent sprawling development patterns. In addition

    to requirements such as coming up with comprehensive plans that ocus

    development in urban growth areas, the GMA requires the ollowing o local

    jurisdictions:

    RCW 36.70A.070: Pertaining to mandatory elements o each jurisdictions

    Comprehensive Plan:

    Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design or each

    o the ollowing:

    (6) A transportation element that implements, and is consistent with, the

    land use element.

    (B) Level o service standards or all locally owned arterials and transit

    routes to serve as a gauge to judge perormance o the system. These

    standards should be regionally coordinated;

    (C) For state-owned transportation acilities, level o service standards

    or highways, as prescribed in chapters 47.06 and 47.80 RCW, togauge the perormance o the system. The purposes o refecting level

    o service standards or state highways in the local comprehensive

    plan are to monitor the perormance o the system, to evaluate

    improvement strategies, and to acilitate coordination between the

    countys or citys six-year street, road, or transit program and the oce o

    nancial managements ten-year investment program. The concurrency

    requirements o (b) o this subsection do not apply to transportation

    acilities and services o statewide signicance except or counties

    consisting o islands whose only connection to the mainland are state

    highways or erry routes. In these island counties, state highways

    and erry route capacity must be a actor in meeting the concurrency

    requirements in (b) o this subsection;

    (D) Specic actions and requirements or bringing into compliance locally

    owned transportation acilities or services that are below an established

    level o service standard;

    (E) Forecasts o trac or at least ten years based on the adopted land

    use plan to provide inormation on the location, timing, and capacity

    needs o uture growth;

    (F) Identication o state and local system needs to meet current and

    uture demands. Identied needs on state-owned transportation acilities

    must be consistent with the statewide multimodal transportation plan

    required under chapter 47.06 RCW;

    Ater adoption o the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to

    plan or who choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, local jurisdictions

    must adopt and enorce ordinances which prohibit development

    approval i the development causes the level o service on a locallyowned transportation acility to decline below the standards adopted

    http://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2047%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20chapter.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2047%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2047%20.%2080%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2047%20.%2080%20%20chapter.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2047%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20chapter.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2036%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A.040.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2036%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A.040.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2047%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20chapter.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2047%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2047%20.%2080%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2047%20.%2080%20%20chapter.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2047%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20chapter.htm
  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    14/51

    14143.0 local guidance

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    in the transportation element o the comprehensive plan, unless

    transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts

    o development are made concurrent with the development. These

    strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride

    sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation

    systems management strategies. For the purposes o this subsection(6), concurrent with the development means that improvements or

    strategies are in place at the time o development, or that a nancial

    commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies

    within six years. (Washington State Legislature)

    wsgo S Go Mgm a, lOS corms

    As discussed in the introduction to this Guide, local governments planning

    under the GMA are required to establish concurrency systems and LOS

    standards within their Comprehensive Plans. These systems and standards

    ultimately serve as the ramework or permitting development and identiying

    deciencies in the transportation system. I transportation inrastructure

    can remain concurrent with development by maintaining the adopted LOS,

    a uture development may be permitted. The GMA requires denial o a

    proposed development, however, i its impacts would result in LOS dropping

    below the adopted standards. That said, i the jurisdictions LOS standards

    only pertain to automobiles, then building a Complete Street may be at odds

    with the GMA legal requirements (i it reduces the automobile LOS or the

    respective acility).

    Cities and counties are also required under the Regulatory Concurrency

    requirement o the GMA to adopt six-year capital acilities plans with the

    inclusion o measurable LOS standards or specic types o capital acilities.

    As part o their capital acilities plans, local jurisdictions are required to

    estimate capacities and orecast uture needs or all acilities covered in their

    plans.

    t isss

    Despite the GMAs best intentions to discourage sprawling development andpromote transportation alternatives, the level o service and transportation

    concurrency requirements can eectively contradict theses goals. Because

    the majority o communities planning under the GMA ramework utilize

    traditional LOS measures and standards, requiring cities to maintain these

    standards can encourage the development o auto-oriented streets and auto-

    oriented land use patterns. With the measures o LOS limited to automobile

    trac congestion, maintaining adopted LOS standards typically meansadding automobile capacity, which is inconsistent with eorts to promote

    a multimodal transportation system and reduce environmental impacts

    (Comeau, 2009).

    An example o a city experiencing diculties with the contradictory nature

    o these regulations comes rom the Whatcom County city o Bellingham.

    Bellingham recognized that the structure o its LOS ramework was not

    allowing it to permit development in a highly developable corridor because

    it wasnt able to add additional capacity to the roadway. While signicant

    development potential remained along this corridor, due to GMA LOS andconcurrency requirements, the city had to impose a building moratorium

    along the corridor that lasted or nine months. Consequently, the city has

    developed a multimodal LOS and concurrency ramework that will allow it to

    consider LOS or other modes o transportation as part o its accepted LOS

    standards when permitting development.

    The LOS standards adopted by local jurisdictions are critical to establishing

    a network o Complete Streets. I a citys LOS standards only refect vehicle

    capacity and demand, and ail to incorporate the eects to other modes

    o transportation, the types o projects that receive unding will be biasedtoward those that only improve automobile LOS (Municipal Research and

    Services Center o Washington). Moreover, cities may be required to

    dedicate signicant resources to roadway expansion projects in order to

    maintain their adopted LOS standards.

    While the GMA requires cities to adopt LOS standards and ensure

    transportation concurrency when permitting development, it is up to the

    local jurisdiction to determine what those LOS standards look like. The only

    requirements to this end are that the LOS standards should be regionally

    coordinated. The city o Bellingham realized ater years o working withconventional volume-to-capacity LOS standards based on the Highway

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070
  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    15/51

    15153.0 local guidance

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    Capacity Manualthat it wasnt possible to promote urban inll development

    while maintaining existing LOS standards. In order to meet the state law

    without developing an entirely new measurement methodology, the city

    council adopted a policy that allowed or an LOS o F on specic arterials.

    In 2008, the city adopted a new methodology or multimodal transportation

    concurrency, based on person trips available by concurrency service area.The city continues to meet the legal requirements under the GMA, but has

    much more fexibility in its transportation planning and project design. See

    Bellingham Municipal Code, Section 13.70, Multi-modal Transportation

    Concurrency Requirements (Comeau, 2009).

    KinG cOunty: cOuntywide level Of ServicefraMewOrK GuidinG PrinciPleS

    The ollowing Countywide Level o Service Framework Guiding Principleswere adopted by the Growth Management Planning Council on July 21,

    1993 in response to Countywide Planning Policy T-4. They are provided as

    advisory guidelines or local jurisdictions to consider as they develop level o

    service standards (King County, 2010).

    Use a multi-modal LOS approach: Jurisdictions should use a multi-modal

    approach or long-range transportation planning. Instead o relying on

    traditional measurements or passenger cars, new LOS standards should

    encourage the use o transit, transportation demand management, and

    nonmotorized travel.

    Establish non-single occupancy vehicle mode split goals: Local

    jurisdictions should work with METRO to establish non-single occupancy

    vehicle mode split goals.

    Develop (supply-side) transit perormance measures: METRO should

    develop supply-side transit LOS measures that include service availability

    and service quality.

    Develop demand-side transit perormance measures: In order to achieve

    non-single occupancy vehicle mode split goals, jurisdictions shouldadopt policies and implement actions that support transit investments.

    Develop regional LOS standards and thresholds: Local jurisdictions, the

    state, and transit agencies should work with the Puget Sound Regional

    Council (PSRC) to develop LOS standards or regional acilities.

    Average arterial LOS: Jurisdictions will determine the appropriate areas

    or corridors to measure LOS.

    Vary LOS standards by land use or growth management objectives:

    The LOS standard should vary by diering levels o development

    patterns and growth management objectives. For example, lower arterial

    standards that tolerate more congestion should be established or Urban

    Centers. Transit LOS standards may also vary based upon population and

    employment densities.

    Support the Countywide land use vision: Each jurisdiction should devise

    their LOS approach in ways that support the Countywide land use vision.

    Develop a nonmotorized LOS component: Local jurisdictions should

    develop a nonmotorized component o their LOS standard. For

    example, jurisdictions may use a checklist that indicates whether or not

    undamental nonmotorized policies, standards, and acilities are in place.

    Include state acilities in LOS evaluations

    Determine LOS thresholds at the local level: Each jurisdiction will

    determine LOS thresholds and weights appropriate or their jurisdiction

    that are consistent with the Countywide vision.

    Establish interlocal agreements: Applying LOS standards may use

    interlocal agreements with adjacent jurisdictions to coordinate LOS

    methodologies and resolve dierences.

    MOvinG tOward a MultiMOdal lOS andcOncurrency fraMewOrK in KinG cOunty

    In our region, three cities stand out in their multimodal concurrency planning:

    Redmond, Bellevue and Kirkland. In 2006, the City o Kirkland set a goal

    to establish level o service standards that encourage development o a

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    16/51

    16163.0 local guidance

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    multimodal transportation system. In 2008, downtown Bellevue was chosen

    as the site o a multimodal concurrency pilot project conducted by Puget

    Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Finally, in 2009 the City o Redmond went

    so ar as to adopt a Multimodal Plan-Based Concurrency System to manage

    the pace o development while providing transportation improvements or all

    users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, drivers and transit riders. This sectiono the guide looks at each jurisdictions pursuit o multimodal concurrency in

    more detail and discusses the dierences o each.

    caSe Study: city Of KirKland

    In September o 2006, the City o Kirkland nalized revisions to its

    Comprehensive Plan. A sought-ater goal o the 2006 update was to

    Establish level o service standards that encourage development o a

    multimodal transportation system (Goal T-5). Ater much study anddiscussion, the City o Kirkland decided that an intersection capacity

    technique was the best choice or measuring level o service and developing

    level o service standards. Today, Kirkland uses dierent level o service

    standards or dierent modes o travel.

    v l o S

    For vehicular level o service, the city has developed an aggregated roadway

    level o service measure that averages the capacity o signalized intersections

    within a geographic area. This policy establishes a peak-hour level o service

    standard or vehicular trac based on projected 2022 land use and roadnetworks. It is a two-part standard, based on the ratio o trac volume to

    intersection capacity (V/C) or signalized system intersections.

    The two standards or vehicular level o service are:

    Maximum allowed subarea average V/C or signalized system

    intersections in each subarea may not exceed the specic

    calculated values.1

    1 The level o service standards were calculated using a computerized transportation model shared with Bel-levue and Redmond, called the Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond (BKR) model. The standards are the outcomes oland use and transportation network choices entered into the model.

    No signalized system intersection may have a V/C greater than

    1.40.2

    Underlying the standards is the idea that the system is not considered to be

    ailing i the peak-hour is congested. Use o peak-hour or measuring level o

    service is standard in the region and implies that trac will fow better duringthe rest o the day.

    ts l o S

    Mode split is used as the level o service standard or transit. By the year

    2022, the City o Kirkland strives to achieve a transit mode split o 35

    percent. This standard is expressed in terms o a desired percentage o

    peak-hour home to work trips taken via transit. The 35 percent transit mode

    split represents a long-term goal or the city to achieve through providing

    improved transit accessibility, transportation demand management (TDM)

    systems, ecient nonmotorized systems, shops and services located close

    to home, and other strategies to encourage transit use rather than single-

    occupancy vehicle (SOV) driving.

    nomooz l o S

    Nonmotorized level o service is expressed in terms o miles o completed

    bicycle and pedestrian acilities and number o complete corridors, and

    refects the desire o the city to create an interconnected system o bicycle

    and pedestrian routes. The existing system has deciencies and gaps that

    the proposed standards strive to complete. The decided standards orbicycle and pedestrian acilities are based on the priority routes indicated in

    the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) and the citys Transportation

    Program Evaluation Criteria.

    As identied in the NMTP, Kirkland strives to achieve a level o service

    standard by 2022 o:

    59 miles o bicycle acilities.

    2 A V/C o less than 1.0 means that the volume at the intersection is less than capacity. I the V/C is equal to

    1.0, the intersections volume and capacity are equal. When the V/C is greater than 1.0, volume has exceededcapacity. As the V/C increases, the congestion at the intersection increases and the level o service gets worse.Kirkland strives to keep V/C ratios under 1.30 whenever possible, with a maximum V/C ratio set at 1.40.

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    17/51

    17173.0 local guidance

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    155 miles o pedestrian acilities.

    Six east-west and our north-south completed pedestrian

    corridors.

    Four east-west and two north-south completed bicycle corridors.

    The City considers the ollowing actors when determining the location o

    new bicycle and pedestrian acilities:

    Completion o the interconnected system established in the

    NMTP

    Sae school routes and connections to public acilities

    Commercial centers

    Regional pedestrian and bicycle routes

    dssso

    Although very high, the V/C ratios in Kirklands vehicular level o service

    standard are acceptable to the city, as is typically the case with other

    jurisdictions, because there is oten a limited amount o unding available to

    improve the ratio. In addition, Kirkland recognizes that it is not possible or

    a city to build its way out o congestion, even with unlimited unds. Road

    widening has been shown to have quality-o-lie impacts that many Kirkland

    residents nd unacceptable.

    Additionally, the vehicular standards set orth by Kirkland are based on

    congestion becoming worse in the uture. Kirklands Comprehensive Plan

    states, The need to move to alternative modes becomes all the more clear

    when we can see the peak-hour vehicular level o service orecasted or the

    uture (page IX-15).

    With regards to the transit and nonmotorized level o service standards,

    Kirkland will need to reevaluate its metrics once the transit mode split is

    reached and the nonmotorized network is built out and completed. For

    transit, this may mean setting the mode split bar even higher or uture

    years. Likewise or nonmotorized level o service, it may mean increasing the

    number o miles o non-motorized acilities to be built by a specied year,

    as per a uture NMTP update. However, or both transit and nonmotorized

    modes, it may also mean shiting to a calculated level o service similar

    to that outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual that looks at the

    perormance o existing segments, intersections and acilities.

    rsos

    City of Kirkland Comprehensive Plan, September 2006 Revision, Chapter IX

    Transportation.

    caSe Study: city Of Bellevue

    In 2008, the Washington State Legislature allocated unding or the Puget

    Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to conduct a pilot project demonstrating

    the process or analyzing multimodal concurrency within a regional growth

    center. PSRC, in conjunction with King County Metro, selected downtown

    Bellevue as a case study with the intent o developing a scalable multimodal

    concurrency measurement and analysis ramework that other jurisdictions

    could employ to manage multimodal travel demand and potentially

    incorporate into their concurrency management systems.

    The ocus o the pilot project was multimodal concurrency within the long-

    range planning process, coined Planning Concurrency by the project team.

    In contrast to the existing Regulatory Concurrency that typically has a ve-to six-year horizon, the longer horizon associated with Planning Concurrency

    allows the ability to incorporate multimodal levels o service into the local

    and regional long-range planning eorts.

    rgo, Pg Mmo co

    Jurisdictions use Regulatory Concurrency to evaluate the ability o a planned

    transportation system to accommodate additional travel generated by a

    proposed development. The proposed development may only proceed to

    construction i the jurisdiction determines that the additional trips producedby the development would not violate the level o service standards

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    18/51

    18183.0 local guidance

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    established through the jurisdictions comprehensive planning process.

    However, as this Guide makes clear, many cities still have level o service

    standards that are based on measuring V/C ratios at intersections and that do

    not explicitly measure or recognize the capacity provided by carpools, transit

    or nonmotorized acilities.

    In June 2009, PSRC prepared a report on the downtown Bellevue pilot

    project entitled PSRC and City of Bellevue Multimodal Concurrency Pilot

    Project. The report ound that in growth centers, all modes are needed to

    meet travel demand; and that roadway, transit and land use planning need

    to be done together and reinorced with investment decisions to ensure that

    local growth can be supported.

    One intended result o the pilot project was to introduce a new approach to

    Regulatory Concurrency that addresses additional modes o travel (bicycle,

    pedestrian and transit) and that can be replicated by all Washington stateRegional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) and jurisdictions.

    The proposed Planning Concurrency alternative builds o o uture land

    use inputs (population and employment) as well as roadway and transit levels

    o service, all o which are established through a jurisdictions comprehensive

    planning process. Forecasted trips are compared with roadway and

    transit levels o service to determine gaps in the ability o the planned

    transportation system to accommodate estimated demand in each mode.

    I a gap is identied, the implementing agency perorms a market analysis to

    determine i and/or where eciencies and other improvements in the transit network

    can be achieved. Trips that remain un-served by a more ecient and eective

    transit network are then accommodated through a multimodal concurrency

    approach that utilizes a variety o strategies, including TDM, changes in land use,

    bicycle or pedestrian connectivity improvements, and roadway capacity expansion.3

    Multimodal concurrency thus serves as a process or incorporating a multimodal level

    o service that can be used in either Regulatory o Planning Concurrency processes.

    3 While road widening has quality-o-lie impacts that some communities such as Kirkland, discussed above fnd unacceptable, the prioritization o one strategy type over another remains a local policy decision.

    Mo O

    The proposed Planning Concurrency analysis approach occurs in three broad

    steps, which are described in limited detail below. This section ocuses

    specically on the suggested evaluation metrics proposed in Step 1, as these

    are most relevant to the discussion o multimodal level o service metrics andstandards.

    Step 1: Concurrency Evaluation

    In the rst step, orecast travel demand is compared with the planned

    capacity o the transportation system. I the analysis concludes that the

    transportation system is adequate, then the proposed development can be

    constructed and no urther work is required. In its report, the project team

    suggested potential measures or alternative modes o travel, discussed

    below.

    Suggested roadway level o service metrics:

    Highway Capacity Manual intersection-based level o service

    Highway Capacity Manual roadway segment-based level o service

    Suggested transit level o service metrics:

    Load actor average ratio o load to capacity

    Capacity (supply) seats in time period in study area

    Load (demand) riders in time period in study area

    Speed average transit speed on all transit segments within the

    city boundary

    Headway average headway on all routes serving the study area

    Reliability roadway level o service in study area (as proxy) in time

    period

    Service coverage percent o transit service area that is

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    19/51

    19193.0 local guidance

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    accessible where transit service area is dened by the desired

    type o possible service4

    Suggested bicycle level o service metrics:

    Presence o o-road bicycle acilities,

    5

    expressed as the ratio oland area in the total quarter-mile buers around all o-road,

    nonmotorized acilities to total land area within the study area

    The ratio o centerline miles o roadway with bicycle amenities 6

    to centerline miles o roadway without bicycle amenities within

    the study area

    Other actors to be considered:

    Posted vehicle speed limit

    Proportion o heavy vehicles in the roadway trac volume

    Connectedness o acilities to open bicycle use (including

    multimodal connections)

    Availability o end-o-trip acilities such as bicycle lockers and

    showers

    Suggested pedestrian level o service metrics:

    Presence o sidewalks, measured as the total ratio o block aces

    with complete, passable sidewalks to the total number o block

    aces within the study area

    Intersection density expressed as a ratio o walkable intersections

    per square kilometer in the study area

    Other actors to be considered:

    4 Example: Three housing units per acre or hourly bus service. Accessibilit y would be measured as a quarter-mile network buer rom all active bus stops and a hal-mile buer or rail.

    5 Defned as a acility physically inaccessible to motor vehicles, even i it lies within general roadway right-o-way.

    6 Where bikes share the general roadway, including amenities such as bike lanes and wide shoulders.

    Posted vehicle speed limit

    Presence o a buer between pedestrian space and vehicle

    lanes

    Street width

    Presence o mid-block crossings

    Presence o crosswalks and pedestrian amenities including

    waynding

    Topographical challenges

    Step 2: Gap/Problem Identifcation

    I Step 1 nds that concurrency has not been met, a gap must be determined

    between the originally proposed uture transportation system and a scenariothat would meet concurrency.

    The gap is then translated into units such as person trips or other quantiable

    terms that would allow scenario testing to be conducted under Step 3.

    Problems in the system arise either because too many people are trying to

    use a mode (a person-trip gap) or a given proportion o the system is simply

    inadequate to support many trips at all (a quality o service gap).7

    Step 3: Strategy and Design Testing

    Finally, transit, TDM, bicycle, pedestrian and roadway strategies are designedand tested to close the gaps and meet concurrency requirements. The

    design o a set o uture transportation investments to meet concurrency

    across all dimensions should integrate all individual modal eorts into one

    comprehensive picture.8

    7 Methods or identiying gaps along with a downtown Bellevue case study are discussed in more detail inthe pilot project report.

    8 Methods o modal strategy design along with a downtown Bellevue case study are discussed in moredetail in the pilot project report.

    l l d

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    20/51

    20203.0 local guidance

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    dssso

    In the past several years, the Washington State Legislature has made several

    changes to the Regulatory Concurrency statute o the GMA; however,

    there has not been a comprehensive rewrite o the Regulatory Concurrency

    requirements that clearly states how multiple modes o transportation canbe or should be incorporated into concurrency. In act, no ormal ramework

    under the GMA exists that would ensure roadway and transit level o service

    standards in local comprehensive plans are coordinated with transit agency

    short- and long-range planning. Such a legal ramework could help ensure

    that growth centers such as Bellevue, Redmond and Kirkland are adequately

    served by the transportation systems needed to make development work.

    PSRC, King County Metro and the City o Bellevue have developed a good

    initial ramework or evaluating the level o service o alternative modes in

    our region, but more needs to be done. For example, additional pedestrianand bicycle metrics should be explored as more innovative inrastructure

    treatments are identied and implemented on our local and regional

    roadways.

    Furthermore, as identied in the pilot program report, additional exploration

    into how the proposed metrics respond to a range o input may be necessary

    or success o the multimodal level o service ramework. For example, the

    transit metric output is based on a ridership assumption. Analyzing how this

    output changes based on dierent assumptions would give jurisdictions more

    inormation on which to base a transit concurrency standard.

    Although this ramework or evaluating multimodal level o service is

    more prescriptive than the City o Kirklands level o service guidelines or

    transit, bicycles and pedestrians, it is still not clear how to grade the

    level o service or a specic mode and set standards or that mode within

    a jurisdiction. The ramework was developed beore the 2010 Highway

    Capacity Manual, which includes clearly dened algorithms or evaluating

    modes o travel. Perhaps as uture research and expansion o the downtown

    Bellevue multimodal concurrency pilot project is conducted, the model

    will grow stronger and more useul across our region, and ultimately get

    incorporated into the concurrency requirements o the GMA.

    rsos

    PSRC and City of Bellevue Multimodal Concurrency Project A Special

    Report to the Joint Transportation Committee, prepared by Puget Sound

    Regional Council in consultation with City o Bellevue and King County

    Metro, June 2009.

    caSe Study: city Of redMOnd

    Redmonds Transportation Master Plan (TMP) was established in 2005 and

    included a Transportation Facilities Plan (TFP) based on Redmonds 2022

    vision or a land use/transportation balance. In June 2009, Fehr & Peers

    prepared a report or the City o Redmond entitled City of Redmond

    Multimodal Plan-Based Concurrency System. The report outlined a tool or

    managing the pace o development in the city while providing transportationimprovements or all roadway users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, drivers

    and transit riders. This new concurrency system was developed as part o a

    multi-year planning process to update the Redmond Comprehensive Plan

    approved by the Redmond City Council in 2004.

    In October 2009, the City o Redmond adopted its Multimodal Plan-

    Based Concurrency System. The overall concept or the new concurrency

    system stemmed rom the TMP analysis o 2022 land use (as contained in

    the Comprehensive Plan) and the 2022 TMP. The TMP concluded that in

    2022, the Citys transportation system would be near capacity in the PMpeak hour o travel. To maintain concurrency, the City determined that it

    must appropriately pace land development with multimodal transportation

    improvements and strategies.

    As noted throughout this Guide, conventional planning practice determines

    transportation impacts by calculating the number oautomobile trips that

    will be generated by orecasted land use. Using a multimodal approach, the

    new plan-based concurrency system relies on a mode-neutralmeasure known

    as the mobility unit, which is measured in terms operson miles traveled

    rather than vehicle miles traveled or automobile delay.

    3 0 l l d

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    21/51

    21213.0 local guidance

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    tsg o tspoo co

    As part o the concurrency review process or a proposed development,

    each proposal must be analyzed to determine the number o mobility units

    expected to be generated by the development. The demand or mobility

    units is then compared to the available mobility units within the citys Six-YearProgram, as required by the GMAs Regulatory Concurrency requirements. I

    sucient mobility units are available, then the development is considered to

    be concurrent. However, i the development is deemed not concurrent, then

    the applicant must provide additional mobility units o capacity or wait until

    sucient mobility units become available.9

    Under the transportation concurrency test, city sta calculates the net new

    mobility unit demand based on existing and proposed land use inormation

    provided by the applicant in a Transportation Concurrency Application.

    This land use inormation is used along with a Development Mobility UnitCalculator to determine the existing mobility unit demand, new mobility unit

    demand and net new mobility unit demand.

    cg Pso Ms t

    Two methods are used to calculate person miles traveled in Redmond. The

    rst method uses what is called the Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond (BKR) model

    o travel demand along with the PSRC travel model to produce composite

    orecasts o person trip by mode.10 The models are also used to calculate

    trip lengths by mode.

    The second method used to calculate mobility units is termed the person-

    mile calculator. This method uses a spreadsheet tool to combine

    travel characteristics rom the travel demand model and trip generation

    characteristics rom the Institute o Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip

    Generation Report (7th Edition). Person miles are calculated using a multi-

    step process:

    9 Mobility units become available as additional transportation projects are unded and committed by the Citywithin its Six-Year Program (e.g. Transportation Improvement Program and Capital Investment Program).

    10 The 2022 BKR demand model was originally developed or the Citys TMP. This included the orecast growthin land use rom 2005 to 2022, plus network changes expected by 2022.

    Step A: Identiy PM peak hour vehicle trip generation rates or generalized

    land use categories using ITE data.

    Step B: Vehicle trips are converted to person trips by applying an average

    vehicle occupancy rate and a mode split percentage. Average vehicle

    occupancy denes how many people are in the vehicle, and the modesplit denes the proportion o people traveling in vehicles to total persons

    traveling via all modes. Since the ITE data are based on national survey

    results, oten in suburban settings, the City o Redmond study team applied

    a conservative average vehicle occupancy rate o 1.12 and a vehicular mode

    split o 90 percent.

    Step C: Calculate an average trip length actor or each land use type,

    varying by land use as documented in the Redmond Transportation Impact

    Fee Program (updated 2007).

    Person miles are the product o person trips (Step B) and trip length (Step C).

    Person miles, calculated by land use type, are added to produce a citywide

    estimate o total person miles. Application o this process is discussed

    in detail in the Fehr & Peers report, and is not necessarily relevant to this

    Guides ocused discussion o multimodal level o service.

    dssso

    Although Redmonds approach to concurrency is a departure rom the typical

    concurrency system currently in place in Washington state, the Redmond

    system meets the intent o concurrency as laid out in the GMA.

    Redmonds system was described at the beginning o the section as mode

    neutral, in that it does not look at specic modes in the way Bellevues

    Multimodal Concurrency Pilot Project did, or even to a lesser degree the

    City o Kirklands multimodal level o service laid out in its Comprehensive

    Plan. Instead, mode split denes the proportion o people in vehicles

    compared to total persons traveling in Redmond. Redmond uses a 90

    percent SOV rate, which refects o national averages. It also matches the

    2005 SOV rate included within Redmonds travel model, validated or 2005.

    Redmond and many other Puget Sound cities plan to have much lower

    SOV percentages in the uture Redmonds target is 70 percent. The city,

    3 0 l l id

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    22/51

    22223.0 local guidance

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    however, believes that the value used in their analysis seems to be consistent

    with national averages inherent in the ITE trip generation data.

    With regard to SOV assumptions, a specic trac study and modal count

    would potentially strengthen the person-mile calculator and produce

    dierent results. Certainly as time goes on and i environmental actorssuch as gas prices continue to shit mode splits toward alternative means o

    travel (transit, biking, walking) the 90 percent SOV rate will no longer be

    accurate and may produce unintended results with regards to concurrency.

    The overall analysis in place, however, appears to be a straightorward

    method o tracking concurrency in Redmond and making adjustments to

    ensure that the city meets its concurrency standards now and in the uture.

    rsos

    City of Redmond Multimodal Plan-Based Concurrency System, prepared or

    the City o Redmond by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, June 2009.

    City of Redmond Multimodal Plan-Based Concurrency System

    Transportation Concurrency Administrative Guidelines, City o Redmond,

    October 2009.

    4 0 l i d l l l i d l

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    23/51

    23234.0 multimodal level o service models

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    Mult imodal Level o Service Models

    Overview

    Highway Capacity Manual

    HCM 2000

    HCM 2010

    FDOTs Quality/Level o Service Handbook

    Transit Capacity and Quality o Service Manual

    Bicycle Level o Service Model

    Pedestrian Level o Service Model

    Summary

    Overview

    Various models have been developed to calculate level o service (LOS) or

    various modes o transportation. According to a state-o-the practice

    survey conducted through National Cooperative Highway Research

    Program (NCHRP) 3-70, there are three major proessional manuals typically

    reerenced by public agencies when evaluating multimodal highway level oservice. These manuals are the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM), Floridas

    Quality/Level of Service Handbookand the Transit Capacity and Quality of

    Service Manual.

    While various multimodal LOS models exist, traditional approaches to

    evaluating transportation system perormance ocus primarily on measuring

    automobile LOS. The conventional methodology or calculating automobile

    LOS is detailed in the HCM 2000. While the HCM 2000 includes LOS

    measures or bicycles, pedestrians and transit, surveys have indicated that the

    recommended methodologies are not entirely applicable to these modes.

    This chapter will summarize some o the leading level o service models, with

    special emphasis on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. The HCM 2010

    provides the most recent and possibly the most comprehensive model or

    calculating multimodal LOS as an integrated ramework. The HCM 2010

    multimodal LOS was developed through extensive research conducted as

    part o the NCHRP Project 3-70, discussed in greater detail in the Appendixo this Guide.

    Models such as the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual(TCQSM),

    the Bicycle LOS (BLOS)model and the Pedestrian LOS (PLOS)model are

    specic to their respective modes and do not allow or an easy comparison

    across modes. They still provide, however, a comprehensive ramework or

    evaluating LOS or these modes.

    hiGhway c aPacity Manual

    The Highway Capacity Manualby the Transportation Research Board (TRB)

    is commonly used as the transportation engineering and planning standard

    in evaluating transportation acilities. According to the TRB, it is a division

    o the National Research Council, which serves as an independent adviser

    to the ederal government and others on scientic and technical questions

    o national importance. The HCM is one o the most commonly used

    manuals or LOS guidance, specically or computing automobile LOS.

    The HCM provides LOS measures, thresholds and calculation procedures

    or auto, transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes. The our transit LOSmeasures provided in the HCM 2000 are adapted rom the six presented

    in the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. The Pedestrian and

    Bicycle LOSmeasures are based on research conducted or the Federal

    Highway Administration (Rouphail, Recommended Procedures or Chapter

    13, Pedestrians, o the Highway Capacity Manual, 1999 and Rouphail,

    Recommended Procedures or Chapter 14, Bicycles, o the Highway Capacity

    Manual, 1999).

    The primary dierence between the HCM 2000 and HCM 2010 (relevant to

    this Guide) is the multimodal LOS ramework included in the HCM 2010.Because the HCM 2000 and its LOS procedure is currently the most widely

    4 0 l i d l l l i d l

    4 0 l i d l l l i d l

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    24/51

    4.0 multimodal level o service models

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    used version, however,

    this section will provide

    a summary o its

    contents as it relates to

    multimodal LOS and the

    weaknesses associatedwith its recommended

    approach rom a

    multimodal perspective.

    hg cpM 2000

    The HCM 2000, which provides LOS procedures or auto,

    transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes, is the most

    widely used manual or calculating LOS. In contrast

    to the HCM 2010, the HCM 2000 considers the our

    modes separately. The HCM 2010 integrates all

    modes into one chapter, making it easier to make

    comparisons between dierent cross-sections. The

    HCM 2000 procedures are also based primarily

    on speed and delay. The HCM 2010 integrates

    qualitative actors that are more appropriate to

    determining the level o service provided or

    bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users.

    The Pedestrian LOS measures included in the HCM 2000are based on research conducted or the Federal Highway

    Administration (FHWA) (Rouphail, Recommended Procedures

    or Chapter 13, Pedestrians, o the Highway Capacity

    Manual, 1999). The Pedestrian LOS analysis is computed

    by counting pedestrians who cross a point over a certain

    period o time (typically 15-minute intervals). This results

    in what has been termed a fow rate. For sidewalks, the

    estimation model is based on space per pedestrian whereas

    at intersections, Pedestrian LOS is based on delay. Although

    there are disadvantages to this model, the LOS is easy to

    calculate and collect data or. One o the key disadvantages

    to the model is that it does not take into account many

    physical, environmental and psychological actors that

    infuence the pedestrian experience. The image on this page

    illustrates Pedestrian LOS scores based on the HCM 2000

    methodologies. Under this approach, a sidewalk with no

    pedestrians may receive an LOS A. This representation

    shows how key quality o service actors are omitted rom

    the HCM 2000 procedures (NY DCP, Transportation Division,

    2006).

    The Bicycle LOS measures included in the HCM are also

    based on research conducted by the FHWA (Rouphail,

    Recommended Procedures or Chapter 14, Bicycles, o the

    Highway Capacity Manual, 1999), providing calculation

    2424

    Table 2: HCM 2000 LOS Criteria or Urban Street

    Mode LOS Criterion Comments (NCHRP 616)

    Auto Mean auto speed or through trac Only applies to arterials, not collector or local streets

    Transit Hours o daily service, reliability These are the two segment LOS criteria or availabil-

    ity and comort and convenienceBicycle Mean speed o bicycle through trac Applies only i designated bicycle lanes are present

    Pedestr ian Mean speed o pedestrian through trac Appl ies only i sidewalk is present

    Source: NCHRP Report 616

    Table 3: HCM 2000 Bicycle LOS or Bicycle Lanes on Urban Streets-

    Pedestrian LOS or sidewalksLOS Average Bicycle Speed LOS Space/Pedestrian

    A >14 mph A >60 square eet

    B 9-14 B 40-60

    C 7-9 C 24-40

    D 5-7 D 15-24

    E 4-5 E 8-15

    F

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    25/51

    4.0 multimodal level o service models

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    procedures or o-street paths and designated bicycle lanes using mean

    bicycle speed and mean control delay. The bicycle service measures

    include average travel delay, average travel speed and hindrance. Table 2

    provides the HCM 2000 Criteria or Urban Streets (including comments rom

    NCHRP Report 616), and Table 3 displays the LOS categories or bicycle and

    pedestrian modes as incorporated into the HCM 2000.

    Major critiques to the HCM 2000 include the ollowing:

    The LOS measures incorporated into the HCM 2000 are not

    based on traveler perception surveys and cannot be compared

    to measures included in the TCQSM and FDOT manuals.

    Each mode is treated separately in the HCM 2000. For example,

    the HCM 2000 does not provide a methodology to measure the

    intersection LOS or all users, but rather relies on perormance

    measures that are unique to each mode. Pedestrian LOS is

    based on square eet/person and doesnt consider the delay

    experienced at intersections or crossing pedestrians.

    The HCM 2000 does not adequately account or physical,

    environmental and psychological

    actors that infuence the pedestrian

    and bicycle experience. For instance,

    the LOS calculations do not take into

    account:

    Motor vehicle trac volume

    Trac speed

    Intersection delay

    Separation rom trac

    Adjacent land uses

    Driver yielding behavior

    Automobile LOS is based on vehicle delay, which means that a

    vehicle with one occupant receives just as much infuence as a

    vehicle with 50 occupants (such as a transit vehicle). Thereore,

    improvements that benet more than one SOV drivers would

    have greater infuence on improving LOS than an improvement

    that benetted a transit bus with 50 occupants (TransportationResearch Board, 2008).

    hiGhway caPacity Manual: 2010

    The HCM 2010 represents the th major revision to the Highway Capacity

    Manual. The signicant changes to this version include the integrated

    multimodal approach, as well as the inclusion o new research and an

    increased emphasis on alternative tools. The multimodal ramework is based

    on the research conducted through NCHRP 3-70, as described in the sectionabove. The organization o the HCM 2010 provides an integration o material

    on bicycle, pedestrian, transit and automobile modes into several chapters,

    rather than stand-alone chapters or each mode. Most content pertaining to

    analysis o urban street acilities can be ound in Chapters 16, 17 and 18

    2525

    Table 4: HCM 2010 Intermodal Interactions

    Impacting Mode

    Mode aected Auto Ped Bike Transit

    Auto Auto & HV volumes

    Turning patternsLane congurations

    Minimum green time

    Turn confictsMid-block crossings

    Turn conficts

    Passing delay

    Heavy vehicle

    Blocking delaySignal priority

    Ped Auto & HV volumesCycle lengthDriver yieldingTurn confictsTrac separation

    Sidewalk crowdingCrosswalk crowdingCross-fows

    Shared-path confictsBicyclist yielding

    Heavy vehicleTransit stop queuesStop cross-fows

    Vehicle yielding

    Bike Auto & HV volumesAuto & HV speedOn-street parkingTurn confictsTrac separation

    Shared-path confictsMin. green timeTurn confictsTrac separation

    Bike volumes Heavy vehicleBlocking delayTracks

    Transit Auto volumesSignal timing

    Auto volumesSignal timing

    Bike env. wualityBike volumes

    Bus volumes

    Source: (Parks, 2011)

    4.0 multimodal level o service models

    4 0 lti d l l l i d l

  • 8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC

    26/51

    26264.0 multimodal level o service models

    multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County

    Findings rom ocus groups were also infuential in developing the

    multimodal ramework included in the HCM 2010. Key ndings included:

    Many jurisdictions are not required to perorm multimodal

    analyses and thereore typically do not perorm them.

    Jurisdictions that do want to conduct bicycle and pedestrian

    analyses do not nd the HCM 2000 capacity-based measures

    useul.

    Most bicycle and pedestrian acilities do not have capacity

    issues, such that the HCM 2000 procedures are not applicable.

    The HCM 2000 multimodal LOS methods ocus on speed, delay and space.

    The research conducted through NCHRP Report 3-70 ound that these

    are not the key actors in determining the quality o service provided or

    bicyclists and pedestrians sharing a roadway environment. Factors such asautomobile volumes and speeds are o higher importance to bicycle and

    pedestrian quality o service. Given these research ndings, the HCM 2010

    considers a broader range o actors or analyzing bicycle and pedestrian

    levels o service.

    The HCM 2010 provides a quality o service approach, ocusing on the perception

    o how well a acility operates rom the travelers perspective. The methodology

    allows or evaluation o intermodal interactions and trade-os (see Table 4).

    Multimodal LOS, as dened in the HCM 2010, measures the degree to which

    the urban street design and operations meet the needs o each modes users.

    The methods or calculating the multimodal LOS or urban arterials result in

    an LOS or each mode, and not a combined LOS score (see Table 5).

    Table 5: Conceptual Multimodal LOS Results (HCM 2010)

    Mode AM Peak PM Peak

    Auto C E

    Transit B C

    Bicycle C C

    Pedestrian D D

    Conceptual Model Results

    ioo o hcM 2010 Mos

    The guidance included in the HCM 2010 manual (as it relates to multimodal

    LOS) covers methodologies or evaluating the capacity and quality o

    service provided to distinct roadway user groups. The manual includes

    quality o service calculations as well as an array o perormance-basedprocedures. There are three analysis levels or which the methodologies can

    be applied: operational, design, and planning and preliminary engineering.

    The operational analysis is the most detailed, with the greatest amount o

    inormation to calculate. The design analysis requires inormation about

    trac and signalization conditions, and the planning level analysis requires

    only undamental types o data.

    The multimodal LOS equations are divided into segments, signalized

    intersections, unsignalized intersections and acilities. Segment and acility

    LOS scores are calculated or all our modes, and signalized intersectionscores are calculated or automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians. Table 6

    illustrates the service measures as included in the HCM 2010.

    Table 6: HCM 2010 Se


Recommended