Skip to main content

Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:


Pages 72-81

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 72...
... The application of mode choice models at the urban street level was considered impractical, so mode choice models were replaced with elasticities derived from typical mode choice models. The elasticities predict the percent increase in ridership as a function of percent change in the transit service characteristics.
Read the entire page →
From page 73...
... All are related to TCQSM measures, which is important from a consistency standpoint. The first three factors can be related to travel time, which addresses a panel request to consider travel speed in the transit LOS model.
Read the entire page →
From page 74...
... The ratio of transit patronage for the perceived travel time rate (minutes per mile, the inverse of the speed) divided by the patronage for a base travel time rate gives an indication of the perceived quality of the service provided relevant to the travel time rate of service.
Read the entire page →
From page 75...
... If local data were available, local elasticities could be substituted for the typical national values used in the model. Travel Time Elasticity A review of transit travel time elasticities in the literature, conducted by TCRP Project A-23A (Cost and Effectiveness of Selected Bus Rapid Transit Components)
Read the entire page →
From page 76...
... Because urban street LOS focuses on the quality of urban street segments, rather than the bus trip as a whole, the alternative transit LOS model works with travel time rates (e.g., 6 minutes per mile) instead of travel times (e.g., 30 minutes)
Read the entire page →
From page 77...
... For example, if the analysis were being performed in Portland, the average weekday passenger miles in 2003 were 765,100, while the average weekday boardings were 214,158, resulting in an average trip length of 3.57 miles. If the average excess wait time was 2 minutes, the additional travel time rate would be (2 / 3.57)
Read the entire page →
From page 78...
... This valueof-time factor, 1.36, corresponds to factor a1 in the perceived travel time rate equation. In application, the transit LOS model would provide a lookup table based on a similar calculation using bus passenger value-of-time to directly provide a1.
Read the entire page →
From page 79...
... The perceived travel time rate (PTTR) is estimated based on the mean speed of the bus service, the average excess wait time for the bus (due to late arrivals)
Read the entire page →
From page 80...
... ATR = amenity time rate = perceived travel time rate reduction due to the provision of certain bus stop amenities = in-vehicle travel time value of stop amenities (minutes) / average trip length (miles)
Read the entire page →
From page 81...
... All three LOS models, FDOT, TCQSM, and the proposed transit LOS model, tend to agree that WMATA Route 2B and AC Transit Route 218 are LOS D/E, which passengers rated as LOS A
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • time rate
  • travel time
  • wait time
  • crossing dif
  • perceived travel

  • passenger trip
  • trip length
  • bus headway
  • amenity time
  • load weighting

  • weighting factor
  • excess wait
  • pedestrian los
  • service attribute
  • time elasticities

  • layover time
  • los model
  • stop amenities
  • time factor
  • travel times

  • mean passenger
  • travel lane
  • mode choice
  • passenger load
  • study section

  • bus speed
  • average trip
  • baseline travel
  • choice models
  • passenger travel


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.