National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets (2008)
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)

Citation Manager

Flannery, Aimee, Dowling, Richard G, Rouphail, Nagui M, Petritsch, Theodore Anton, Landis, Bruce W, Bonneson, James A, Ryus, Paul, Reinke, David B, Vandehey, Mark, Transportation Research Board. "5.3 Performance of Auto LOS Models." NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
71
bottomleft bottomright
Page
71
Front Matter (R1-R11)
Summary (1-2)
1.2 The Research Plan (3-3)
1.3 This Report (4-4)
Highway Capacity Manual (5-5)
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (6-8)
Florida Quality/Level of Service Handbook (9-10)
Highway Capacity Manual (11-12)
Transit TCQSM Critique (13-13)
Florida DOT Q/LOS Handbook (14-14)
The Major Level of Service Manuals (15-15)
Implications for Research Project (16-16)
Urban Street LOS (17-17)
Intersection LOS Research (18-20)
Rural Road Research (21-21)
A Handbook for Measuring Customer Satisfaction (22-22)
3.3 Bicyclist Perceptions of LOS (23-23)
Segment LOS Models Based on Field Surveys or Video Lab (24-25)
Models of Rural Road Bicycle LOS (26-26)
Intersection Crossing LOS Studies (27-27)
Sidewalk and Path LOS Studies (28-28)
Midblock Crossing LOS Studies (29-29)
3.5 Multimodal LOS Research (30-31)
4.1 Selection of QOS Survey Method (32-34)
Auto Video Clips (35-35)
Bicycle Video Clips (36-37)
Pedestrian Video Clips (38-41)
Development of Master DVDs (42-45)
Selection of Video Lab Cities (46-46)
Recruitment (47-49)
Video Lab Sessions (50-50)
4.5 Effects of Demographics on LOS (51-51)
Effects of Demographics on Auto LOS Ratings (52-52)
Effects of Demographics on Pedestrian LOS Ratings (53-53)
Field Data Collection (54-54)
Survey Form Development (55-56)
Survey Distribution (57-57)
Route Characteristics (58-59)
4.7 Representation of Survey Results By A Single LOS Grade (60-61)
Linear Regression Tests (62-63)
Limitations of Linear Regression Modeling (64-64)
Performance of Candidates (65-68)
5.2 Recommended Auto LOS Model (69-70)
5.3 Performance of Auto LOS Models (71-71)
Selection of Explanatory Variables for LOS (72-73)
Elasticity Concept (74-76)
Reliability (77-77)
6.2 Recommended Transit LOS Model (78-78)
Estimation of the Transit Wait Ride Score (79-80)
6.3 Performance of Transit LOS Model (81-81)
7.2 Recommended Bicycle LOS Model (82-82)
Bicycle Intersection LOS (83-83)
7.3 Performance of Bicycle LOS Model on Video Clips (84-85)
8.1 Model Development (86-86)
Pedestrian Other LOS Model (87-87)
Pedestrian Midblock Crossing Factor (88-90)
8.3 Performance Evaluation of Pedestrian LOS Model (91-91)
Input Variable Interactions Among Modes (92-94)
Interactions Among Modal LOS Results (95-95)
Chapter 10 - Accomplishment of Research Objectives (96-97)
References (98-101)
Appendix A - Subject Data Collection Forms (102-104)
Appendix B - Study Protocol (105-109)
Appendix C - Example Recruitment Flyer/Poster (110-110)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (111-111)

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 71
71 5.3 Performance of Model 2 (speed) matched 37% of the video clip mean LOS Auto LOS Models ratings. Model 2 ranges from LOS A to F, while Model 1 ranges Exhibit 81 shows how the mean LOS values produced by from LOS B to F. Model 1 fits the video clip data better but the recommended auto LOS model compare with the does not achieve LOS A for the streets in the video clip sam- mean LOS values reported by the video lab participants. ple. Model 2 has a significantly poorer fit with the data (but The HCM-predicted LOS is included as well. The HCM still better than the HCM); however, it does produce LOS A matched the video labs 26% of the time, while the for nine of the streets in the video clip sample. proposed auto LOS Model 1 (stops) matched the video Several different sections or time periods of the same street labs 69% of the time. The alternate proposed auto LOS were used for many of the clips. Exhibit 81. Evaluation of Proposed Auto LOS Models. Art Spd Lim Actual Stops Left Ln Med Video HCM Model Model Clip # Street Class (mph) (mph) (stps/mi) (%) (1,2,3) LOS LOS 1 LOS 2 LOS 61 Rt 50 1 50 28 1.4 100% 0.00 A C B C 56 Sunset Hills Rd 2 40 23 2.0 100% 3.00 A C B A 2 Gallows Road 3 35 35 0.0 100% 3.00 B A B A 65 Lee Hwy 2 40 36 0.0 100% 2.00 B A B A 63 Rt 50 1 50 42 0.0 100% 3.00 B A B A 5 Wilson Blvd 3 35 30 0.0 100% 3.00 B B B A 62 Rt 50 1 50 37 0.0 100% 0.00 B B B A 13 Washington Blvd 3 35 25 0.0 0% 0.00 B B B A 7 Wilson Blvd 3 35 20 0.0 100% 1.00 B C B B 54 Lee Hwy 2 40 25 3.3 100% 2.00 B C B A 53 Prosperity 2 40 19 1.7 100% 3.00 B D B B 6 Clarendon 3 35 18 2.3 100% 1.00 B D B B 10 Washington Blvd 3 35 17 3.8 0% 0.00 B D C C 20 Rt 50 1 50 16 1.8 100% 3.00 B E B C 64 Rt 50 1 50 20 2.0 100% 3.00 B E B B 58 Sunrise Valley Rd 2 40 11 1.7 100% 3.00 B F B C 1 Rt 234 1 50 15 2.0 100% 3.00 B F B C 29 Rt 234 2 40 23 2.0 100% 3.00 C C B A 19 23rd St 4 30 16 5.8 0% 0.00 C C C C 12 Wilson Blvd 3 35 14 4.3 0% 0.00 C D C D 60 Lee Hwy 2 40 15 2.0 100% 2.00 C E B C 21 Rt 50 1 50 20 4.0 100% 3.00 C E C B 8 Wilson Blvd 3 35 14 4.1 100% 1.00 C E C C 52 M St 4 30 8 7.3 0% 0.00 C E D E 55 Braddock Rd 2 40 13 2.2 100% 3.00 C F B C 59 Sunset Hills Rd 2 40 12 4.9 0% 0.00 C F C E 15 Glebe Road 2 40 8 6.0 100% 3.00 C F C D 14 Glebe Road 2 40 11 6.0 100% 3.00 C F C C 57 Sunset Hills Rd 2 40 17 3.3 0% 0.00 D D C D 16 Fairfax Drive 3 35 12 7.3 100% 3.00 D F C C 51 M St 4 30 7 9.1 0% 0.00 D F D E 25 M St 4 30 11 3.7 0% 0.00 E D C D 23 M St 4 30 8 5.6 0% 0.00 E E C E 30 M St 4 30 7 14.5 0% 0.00 F F F E 31 M St 4 30 4 18.0 0% 0.00 F F F F % Exact Match To Video 100% 26% 69% 37% % Within 1 LOS of Video 100% 46% 94% 89%