Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
15
Exhibit 25. The Modal Operational Inter-Relationships
in the FDOT Q/LOS Handbook.
Mode Auto Transit Bicycle Pedestrian
Auto Higher auto Higher auto flows Higher auto volumes Higher auto
volumes reduce have NO effect on and/or higher speeds volumes and/or
auto LOS transit frequency, reduce bicycle LOS higher speeds
span of service, or reduce pedestrian
walk access LOS
Transit Higher transit Higher bus volumes Higher heavy vehicle Higher heavy
volumes reduce mean higher volumes reduce vehicle volumes
capacity and frequencies, which bicycle LOS reduce pedestrian
increase delays at increases transit LOS LOS
signalized
intersections
Bicycle Higher bicycle Higher bike flows Higher bicycle Higher bicycle
volumes reduce have NO effect on volumes have NO volumes have NO
capacity and transit frequency, effect on BLOS. effect on PLOS.
increase delays at span of service, or Better design affects Better bike design
signalized walk access barriers BLOS. may affect PLOS.
intersections
Pedestrian Higher pedestrian Higher pedestrian Higher pedestrian Higher pedestrian
volumes reduce volumes have NO volumes have NO volumes have NO
capacity and effect on transit LOS. effect on BLOS. effect on PLOS.
increase delays at Better pedestrian Better pedestrian Better design
intersections facilities improve design may affect affects PLOS.
transit LOS. PLOS.
Shaded boxes indicate weak or non-existent inter-relationships. No effect means that a change in modal volume
has no effect on LOS as computed per FDOT.
Modal Interactions: The FDOT Q/LOS Handbook incor- The Major Level of Service Manuals
porates many but not all of the potential cross-modal influ-
ences on level of service. Exhibit 24 highlights the key LOS The existing LOS frameworks outlined in the major LOS
criteria for each mode. Exhibit 25 shows how the various manuals generally do not provide comparable LOS results
modes can affect each of these key LOS criteria. across modes. This is due to different definitions of level of
service and different measurement scales used by the various
manuals for each mode:
2.3 Conclusions
Current Agency Practices 1. The HCM Urban Street LOS measures are not based on
surveys of traveler satisfaction and thus cannot be com-
Public agencies make extensive use of the Highway pared with the traveler satisfaction based LOS measures
Capacity Manual and the Florida Quality/Level of Service contained in the TCQSM and FDOT manuals.
Handbook for planning and designing urban streets. The 2. The TCQSM provides no single LOS result for transit but
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual is a recent de- several different dimensions of LOS making mode-to-
velopment and has not yet seen extensive adoption by pub- mode comparisons difficult. The TCQSM LOS measures
lic agencies. are derived from surveys of traveler satisfaction.
Level of service is used on a daily basis in most public agen- 3. The FDOT multimodal framework, because it relies on
cies to assess the adequacy of the design of urban streets, to the HCM and TCQSM manuals for auto and transit, suf-
assess the effects of new development on urban street opera- fers from the same comparability limitations as those
tions, and to identify the appropriate mitigation measures for manuals. The auto LOS in particular is not comparable
new development. These analyses however focus primarily on with the bike and pedestrian LOS scales, because they are
auto level of service. based on different dimensions of perceived and measured
The survey of current agency practices found little actual traveler satisfaction.
use of level of service for the planning or design of urban
streets for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes, except in The major existing LOS manuals are spotty in their incor-
the State of Florida where it is a recent development. There is, poration of known modal interactions on modal LOS. Either
however, a great deal of interest among public agencies in the selected modal LOS measure (such as hours of bus ser-
acquiring the ability to estimate and forecast level of service vice) is insensitive to the effects of other modes or an accepted
for all four modes, especially if the issue of comparability of methodology has not yet been established for predicting the
results across modes can be achieved. intermodal effects.
