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 91
91 The total delay is then converted into a numerical LOS to the mean LOS rating for each pedestrian video clip. The score by linearly interpolating numerical scores on the scale video clips did not expose lab subjects to any arterial mid- provided in Exhibit 96. block crossing situations. Although the HCM reproduces the mean video lab ratings for each video clip 25% of the time, the two proposed pedestrian LOS models (1 and 2) both re- 8.3 Performance Evaluation produce the mean video clip ratings 43% of the time. The dif- of Pedestrian LOS Model ference is that Model 2 produces LOS A to F results for the Exhibit 97 compares the performance of the proposed streets in the video clip data set. Model 1 produces LOS A to pedestrian LOS model (with the mid-block crossing factor) E results for the same streets.