Upload
golfredo-ramirez
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 1/104
HCM 2010HCM 2010
Urban Street Concepts:Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit
- 1 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 2/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Overview Overview
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysisDevelopment of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case StudiesTraffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysisDevelopment of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case StudiesTraffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
HCM 2010 Course | Urban Street Concepts: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes
- 2 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 3/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
What’s New for HCM 2010?(The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual)
What’s New for HCM 2010?(The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual)
Volume 1 – Concepts
Volume 2 – Uninterrupted Flow Facilities Freeways, rural highways, rural roads
Volume 3 – Interrupted Flow Facilities
Urban arterials, intersections, roundabouts
Signals at freeway interchanges,
Bicycle and Pedestrian paths
Volume 4 – Supplemental Materials (Website)
- 3 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 4/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
What’s New for HCM 2010? What’s New for HCM 2010?
Guidance on How to Apply the HCM
How and when to use microsimulation
Interpretation and presentation of results
Service volume tables
New Freeway Weaving Method
New Chapter on Active Traffic Management
New Arterial Street Method Multimodal Level of Service
New Roundabout Method
- 4 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 5/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
What’s New for HCM 2010?(HCM 2010 Urban Street Analysis)
What’s New for HCM 2010?(HCM 2010 Urban Street Analysis)
Predict Stops, Speed, Queues
Models signal coordination force offs, yields
Mixed street: signal, stops, roundabout
Sensitive to access management
driveways, median breaks
Service Volume Table
- 5 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 6/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Overview Overview
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysisDevelopment of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case StudiesTraffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysisDevelopment of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case StudiesTraffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
HCM 2010 Course | Urban Street Concepts: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes
- 6 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 7/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Brief History of HCM Multimodal AnalysisBrief History of HCM Multimodal Analysis
1950 HCM
Streetcars and buses impact
motorized vehicle capacity at
traffic signals
Pedestrian impacts on motorized
vehicle capacity addressed indirectly
1965 HCM
LOS concept introduced
Short (11-page) chapter on bus transit
- 7 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 8/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Brief History of HCM Multimodal AnalysisBrief History of HCM Multimodal Analysis
1985 HCM
Greatly expanded transit chapter
LOS measures based on the
probability of a queue of buses
forming at a bus stop, passenger loads
New pedestrian chapter
LOS for sidewalks and street corners
based on pedestrian space
New 4-page bicycle chapter
Focused mainly on bicycle impacts
on motorized vehicle capacity
- 8 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 9/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Brief History of HCM Multimodal AnalysisBrief History of HCM Multimodal Analysis
HCM 2000
Transit chapter an abridgement
of the then-new Transit Capacity &
Quality of Service Manual
LOS measures for frequency, hours
of service, passenger load, reliability
Expanded pedestrian chapter
Methods for additional facility types
LOS based on pedestrian space, speed, delay
Expanded bicycle chapter
LOS based on bicycle speed, delay, hindrance
- 9 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 10/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Brief History of HCM Multimodal AnalysisBrief History of HCM Multimodal Analysis
HCM 2000 focus group findings
Many jurisdictions didn’t require multimodal analyses
Therefore, they weren’t performed
Jurisdictions that did want to perform pedestrian &
bicycle analyses didn’t find the HCM 2000 measures
useful
For example, Maryland & Florida used measures of
user comfort
Most pedestrian and bicycle facilities don’t have
capacity or speed issues
No need to analyze them using HCM procedures
- 10 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 11/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Brief History of HCM Multimodal AnalysisBrief History of HCM Multimodal Analysis
Issues with HCM 2000
alternative mode measures:
Pedestrian and bicycle LOS
measures reflected a
traffic engineer’s perspective
Transit measures reflecteda traveler’s perspective, but
4 LOS measures created issues
with results interpretation
HCM 2000: Ped LOS A
HCM 2000: Ped LOS D
- 11 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 12/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Multimodal Research Since HCM 2000Multimodal Research Since HCM 2000
Shared-use path LOS(FHWA, 2006)
Florida Quality/Level of Service Handbook(FDOT, 2002 & 2009)
Transit Capacity &Quality of Service
Manual, 2nd Edition(TCRP Report 100, 2003)
Urban street
multimodal LOS(NCHRP Report 616, 2008)
- 12 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 13/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
HCM 2010 Multimodal Philosophy HCM 2010 Multimodal Philosophy
Integrate multimodal analysis methods into
the appropriate HCM methodological
chapters wherever possible
Alternative mode material is presented side-by-side
with auto mode material to encourage greater
consideration of alternative modes by analysts
Encourage software developers to add multimodal
analysis features
No separate bike, ped, transit chapters
- 13 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 14/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
HCM 2010 Multimodal Philosophy HCM 2010 Multimodal Philosophy
Refer readers to the Transit Capacity &
Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) for most
transit operational analysis methods
Difficult to keep the HCM & TCQSM in synch
HCM still presents transit material used for a
multimodal analysis of an urban street
- 14 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 15/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
HCM 2010 Multimodal Philosophy HCM 2010 Multimodal Philosophy
Allow trade-offs in the use of the right-of-way
by different modes to be evaluated
Mode Affected
Impacting Mode
Auto Ped Bike Transit
Auto Auto & HV volumes
Turning patterns
Lane configurations
Minimum green time
Turn conflicts
Mid-block xings
Turn conflicts
Passing delay
Heavy vehicle
Blocking delay: stops
Signal priority
Ped
Auto & HV volumes
Signal cycle length
Driver yielding
Turn conflicts
Traffic separation
Sidewalk crowding
Crosswalk crowding
Cross-flows
Shared-path conflicts
Bicyclist yielding
Heavy vehicle
Transit stop queues
Bus stop cross-flows
Vehicle yielding
Bike
Auto & HV volumes
Auto & HV speed
On-street parkingTurn conflicts
Traffic separation
Shared-path conflicts
Min. green time
Turn conflictsMid-block xings
Bike volumes
Heavy vehicle
Blocking delay: stopsTracks
Transit Auto volumes
Signal timing
Ped. env. quality
Minimum green time
Turn conflicts
Mid-block xings
Bike environment quality
Bike volumesBus volumes
- 15 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 16/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Overview Overview
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysisDevelopment of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case StudiesTraffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysisDevelopment of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case StudiesTraffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
HCM 2010 Course | Urban Street Concepts: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes
- 16 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 17/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Methodology SelectionMethodology Selection
NCHRP Report 616 method used in HCM 2010
Designed specifically for the HCM
LOS measures based on traveler perceptions
Modal LOS scores can be directly compared to each
other and reflect average traveler satisfaction by mode
Model developed and tested
based on national conditions
- 17 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 18/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Methodology DevelopmentMethodology Development
Pedestrian, bicycle, auto modes:
90 typical street segments recorded
Video labs in four cities around the U.S.
120 Participants rated conditions on a 1–6 scale,
- 18 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 19/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Methodology DevelopmentMethodology Development
Transit mode:
Video lab not a feasible
On-board surveys conducted in 4 cities
However, results showed too wide a range to fit a
model to
Final model was based on national traveler response
data to changes in transit service quality
For example, when service frequency or travel time
is improved, ridership increases
- 19 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 20/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Methodology
Characteristics
Methodology
CharacteristicsAll models generate an perception score that
is generally in the range of 1–6
All models have multiple service quality
factors as inputs
Traditional HCM service measures are based on a
single factor (e.g., delay)
LOS thresholds are the same across models
- 20 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 21/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
LOS Score InterpretationLOS Score Interpretation
LOS LOS Score
A ≤2.00B >2.00–2.75C >2.75–3.50D >3.50–4.25E >4.25–5.00
F >5.00
Auto LOS is based on travel speed as a
percentage of base free-flow speed instead of
on the auto perception score
- 21 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 22/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
LOS Score
Interpretation
LOS Score
InterpretationLOS is reported individually by mode and
direction
No combined LOS for the street
Auto volumes would typically dominate an LOS
weighted by number of travelers
Combined LOS would potentially mask important
deficiencies for a given mode
Measures the degree to which urban streetsmeet the need of all users
- 22 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 23/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Treatment of Safety in Multimodal LOSTreatment of Safety in Multimodal LOS
HCM 2010 does not explicitly include safety
in LOS calculations.
Crash history does not affect LOS
However, HCM 2010 does include safety
implicitly.
Traveler Perceived Safety
Speed of traffic, percent heavy vehicles, barriers
between sidewalk and street, lateral separationbetween vehicle stream and bicyclists and
pedestrians.
- 23 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 24/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Urban Street System
Elements: Link
Urban Street System
Elements: Link
Distance between two signalized intersections
Roundabout or all-way STOP could also be an endpoint
Perception score for bike, ped modes
link
- 24 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 25/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Urban Street System
Elements: Intersection
Urban Street System
Elements: Intersection
Signalized intersection, roundabout, or all-
way STOP that terminates a link Intersection scores only for ped/bike modes
link int.
- 25 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 26/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Urban Street System
Elements: Segment
Urban Street System
Elements: Segment
Segment = link + downstream intersection
Perception scores available for all modes
Ped & bike scores based on combination of link,
intersection, and additional factor
segment
link int.
- 26 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 27/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Urban Street System
Elements: Facility
Urban Street SystemElements: Facility
Facility = 2 or more consecutive segments
Perception scores available for all modes
Length-weighted average of the segment scores
segmentfacility
link int.
- 27 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 28/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Overview Overview
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
HCM 2010 Course | Urban Street Concepts: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes
- 28 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 29/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Pedestrian LOS: LinksPedestrian LOS: Links
- 29 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 30/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Pedestrian LOS: LinksModel Factors
Pedestrian LOS: LinksModel Factors
Factors included:
Outside travel lane width (+)
Bicycle lane/shoulder width (+)
Buffer presence (e.g., on-street parking, street trees) (+)
Sidewalk presence and width (+) Volume and speed of motor vehicle traffic in outside
travel lane (–)
Pedestrian density considered separately Worse of (density LOS, link LOS score) used in
determining overall link LOS
- 30 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 31/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Pedestrian LOS: LinksModel Form
Pedestrian LOS: LinksModel Form
wS vlink p F F F I +++= 0468.6,Ped Link LOS
Score
Constant Cross-
Section
Factor
Vehicle
Volume
th
mv
N
vF
4
0091.0=2
1004
= Rs
SF
Mid-segment demandflow rate (veh/h)
Number of through
lanes in direction of
travel
Motorized vehicle
running speed (mi/h)
[from auto model]
Vehicle
Speed
- 31 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 32/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Wbuf WaA W1
Pedestrian LOS: LinksModel Form
Pedestrian LOS: LinksModel Form
)505.0ln(2276.1 1 swaAbbuf pkvw f W W pW W F ++++−=
Constant % occupied
on-streetparking
Wv
Wv = effective total
width of outsidethrough lane, bike
lane, and shoulder
Fb = 1.00
(no barrier)
Fb = 5.37
(barrier)
f sw = 6.0 – 3WaA
WaA =
min(WA,10 ft)
W1 = effective total
width of bike laneand shoulder
- 32 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 33/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Pedestrian LOS: Signalized IntersectionsPedestrian LOS: Signalized Intersections
- 33 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 34/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Pedestrian LOS: Signalized IntersectionsModel Factors
Pedestrian LOS: Signalized IntersectionsModel Factors
Factors included:
Permitted left turn and right-turn-on-red volumes (–)
Cross-street motor vehicle volumes and speeds (–)
Crossing length (–)
Average pedestrian delay (–) Right-turn channelizing island presence (+)
- 34 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 35/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Pedestrian LOS: Signalized IntersectionsModel Form
Pedestrian LOS: Signalized IntersectionsModel Form
vS wnt i p F F F F I ++++= delay, 5997.0
Ped IntersectionLOS Score
Constant Cross-Section
Factor
SpeedFactor
( )514.0
681.0 dw N F =Number of traffic
lanes crossed
mimiS SnF ,85 ,1500013.0=Minor street
traffic volume
(veh/ln/15 min)
Minor street
midblock auto
speed (mi/h)
PedestrianDelay
Factor
[from auto model]
Volume
Factor
- 35 -
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 36/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Pedestrian LOS: Signalized IntersectionsModel Form
Pedestrian LOS: Signalized IntersectionsModel Form
Traffic volume of
street being
crossed
(veh/ln/15 min)
( )1946.00027.0
4
00569.0 ,15 ,
,−−
+= mjdrtci
permltrtor
v nN vv
F
Constant Conflicting
traffic flow over
crosswalk
(veh/h)
Number of
right-turn
channelizing
islands alongcrossing
- 36 -
d i
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 37/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Pedestrian LOS: SegmentsPedestrian LOS: Segments
- 37 -
d i OS SP d i LOS S
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 38/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Pedestrian LOS: SegmentsModel Factors
Pedestrian LOS: SegmentsModel Factors
Factors included:
Pedestrian link LOS (+)
Pedestrian intersection LOS (+)
Street-crossing difficulty (–/+)
Delay diverting to signalized crossingDelay crossing street at legal unsignalized location
- 38 -
P d i LOS SP d t i LOS S t
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 39/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Pedestrian LOS: SegmentsModel Form
Pedestrian LOS: SegmentsModel Form
606.1220.0318.0 , , , ++= nti plink pcdseg p I I FI
Ped Intersection
LOS Score
Ped Link
LOS Score
Ped Segment
LOS Score
Constant
5.7
)606.1220.0318.0(10.00.1
, , ++−+=
nti plink p px
cd
I I dF
Minimum of
diversion time &
unsignalized crossing delay time
- 39 -
P d t i LOS F ilitP d t i LOS F ilit
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 40/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Pedestrian LOS: Facility Pedestrian LOS: Facility
Length-weighted average of segment LOS scores
Can mask deficiencies in individual segments Consider also reporting segment LOS score for the worst
segment in the facility
- 40 -
O iO i
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 41/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Overview Overview
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
HCM 2010 Course | Urban Street Concepts: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes
- 41 -
Bicycle LOS: LinksBicycle LOS: Links
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 42/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Bicycle LOS: LinksBicycle LOS: Links
- 42 -
Bicycle LOS: LinksBicycle LOS: Links
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 43/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Bicycle LOS: LinksModel Factors
Bicycle LOS: LinksModel Factors
Factors included:
Volume and speed of traffic in outside travel lane (–)
Heavy vehicle percentage (–)
Pavement condition (+)
Bicycle lane presence (+)
Bicycle lane, shoulder, and outside lane widths (+)
On-street parking utilization (–)
- 43 -
Bicycle LOS: LinksBicycle LOS: Links
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 44/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Bicycle LOS: LinksModel Form
Bicycle LOS: LinksModel Form
w pS vlink b F F F F I ++++= 760.0,
Bike Link LOS
Score
Constant Cross-
Section
Factor
Speed
Factor
Pavement
Condition
Factor
2
066.7
c p PF=
Pavement condition
rating (1–5)
[ ] ( )21038.018103.0)20ln(1199.1199.0 HVaRaS PSF ++−=
Vehicle running
speed (>= 21 mi/h)
Adjusted percent
heavy vehicles
=th
mav
N
vF
4ln507.0
Adjusted midblock vehicle flow rate (veh/h)
Number of through lanes in travel direction
Volume
Factor
- 44 -
Bicycle LOS: LinksBicycle LOS: Links
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 45/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Bicycle LOS: LinksModel Form
Bicycle LOS: LinksModel Form
2005.0 ew W F −=
Condition
Variable When
Condition Is Satisfied
Variable When
Condition Is Not Satisfied
p k = 0.0 W t = W ol + W bl + W os * W t = W ol + W bl v m > 160 veh/h or street is divided W v = W t W v = W t (2 – 0.005 v m )W bl + W os
* < 4.0 ft W e = W v – 10 p k ≥0.0 W e = W v + W bl + W os * – 20 p k ≥0.0
Effective width of
outside through lane
Wbl
Wt
Wol
Wos = width of paved outside shoulder
Wos
*
= adjusted width of paved outside shoulder (same as ped link LOS)
Wos
- 45 -
Bicycle LOS: Signalized IntersectionsBicycle LOS: Signalized Intersections
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 46/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Bicycle LOS: Signalized IntersectionsBicycle LOS: Signalized Intersections
- 46 -
Bicycle LOS: Signalized IntersectionsBicycle LOS: Signalized Intersections
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 47/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Bicycle LOS: Signalized IntersectionsModel Factors
Bicycle LOS: Signalized IntersectionsModel Factors
Factors included:
Width of outside through lane and bicycle lane (+)
Cross-street width (–)
Motor vehicle traffic volume in the outside lane (–)
- 47 -
Bicycle LOS: Signalized IntersectionsBicycle LOS: Signalized Intersections
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 48/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Bicycle LOS: Signalized IntersectionsModel Form
Bicycle LOS: Signalized IntersectionsModel Form
vwntib FFI ++= 1324.4 ,
Bike
Intersection
LOS Score
Constant Cross-
Section
Factor
Vehicle
Volume
Factor
tcdw W W 2144.00153.0 −=th
rtthltv
N
vvvF
4
0066.0++
=
Curb-to-curb
cross-street
width
Total width of
outside lane,
bike lane,
paved shoulder
Number of through lanes
in travel direction
Motorized traffic volume
in travel direction
- 48 -
Bicycle LOS: SegmentsBicycle LOS: Segments
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 49/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Bicycle LOS: SegmentsBicycle LOS: Segments
- 49 -
Bicycle LOS: SegmentsBicycle LOS: Segments
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 50/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Bicycle LOS: SegmentsModel Factors
Bicycle LOS: SegmentsModel Factors
Factors included:
Bicycle link LOS (+)
Bicycle intersection LOS, if signalized (+)
Number of access points on right side (–)
Includes driveways and unsignalized street
intersections
Judgment required on how low-volume residential
driveways are treated
- 50 -
Bicycle LOS: SegmentsBicycle LOS: Segments
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 51/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
y OS S gModel Form
y gModel Form
85.2)5280/(035.0011.0160.0,
, , ,
+++= L
N eFI I
sapI
bilinkbsegbntib
Bike
Intersection
LOS Score
Bike Segment
LOS Score
Bike Link
LOS Score
Indicator
Variable
Fbi = 1 if signalized
Fbi = 0 if unsignalized
Number of access
points on right side
Segment length
(mi)
Constant
- 51 -
Bicycle LOS: Facility Bicycle LOS: Facility
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 52/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
y yy y
Length-weighted average of segment LOS scores
Can mask deficiencies in individual segments
Consider also reporting segment LOS score for the worstsegment in the facility
- 52 -
Overview Overview
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 53/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
HCM 2010 Course | Urban Street Concepts: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes
- 53 -
Transit LOS:Transit LOS:
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 54/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Overview Overview
Only segment and facility LOS models
Transit facility LOS is a length-weighted average
of segment LOS
“Transit” includes buses, streetcars, and
street-running light rail
Three main model components:
Access to transit (pedestrian link LOS)
Wait for transit (frequency)
Riding transit (perceived travel time rate)
- 54 -
Transit LOS: SegmentTransit LOS: Segment
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 55/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Model FormModel Form
link ptt h seg t I F F I ,, 15.050.10.6 +−=Headway Factor
Transit Segment
LOS Score
Ped Link
LOS Score
Perceived Travel Time
- 55 -
Transit LOS:Transit LOS:
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 56/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Headway FactorHeadway Factor
)001.0/(434.100.4 +−= svh eF
Headway factor Number of transit vehicles
serving segment per hour
- 56 -
Transit LOS:Transit LOS:
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 57/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Perceived Travel Time ComponentsPerceived Travel Time Components
Factors included:
Actual bus travel speed (+)
Bus stop amenities (+)
Excess wait time due to late bus/train arrival (–)
On-board crowding (–)
Default value of time data and average
passenger trip lengths used to convert actual
times into perceived times For example, the trip seems to take longer when one
has to stand
- 57 -
Transit LOS:Transit LOS:
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 58/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Perceived Travel Time FactorPerceived Travel Time Factor
btt ptt
pttbtt
tt
T eT e
T eT eF
)1()1(
)1()1(
+−−
+−−=
e = ridership elasticity with respect to travel time changes, default value = -0.4
Tbtt = base travel time rate (4.0 or 6.0 min/mi)
Tptt = perceived travel time rate
- 58 -
Transit LOS:i d l i
Transit LOS:i d l i
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 59/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Perceived Travel Time RatePerceived Travel Time Rate
( ) atex
segTt
ptt T T S
aT −+
= 2
60
,
1
Perceived travel
time rate (min/mi)
Crowding
perception
factor
Actual
travel
time rate
Perceived
travel time
rate due to
late arrivals
Perceived
travel time rate
due to stop
amenities
×
−+−+−+
−+=
l
lll
l
F
FFF
Fa
2.4
)])00.1)(5[(5.6)(00.1()80.0)(4(1
2.4
)80.0)(4(1
00.1
1
Load factor (p/seat) <= 0.80
0.80< Load factor <= 1.00
Load factor > 1.00
- 59 -
Overview Overview
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 60/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
HCM 2010 Course | Urban Street Concepts: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes
- 60 -
Case Study C it T t ti Pl
Case Study C it T t ti Pl
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 61/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Community Transportation PlanCommunity Transportation Plan
First application of
MMLOS for Urban
StreetsPre-2010 HCM
DC&E – Prime
consultant
“Harri-Oak”
First application of
MMLOS for Urban
StreetsPre-2010 HCM
DC&E – Prime
consultant
“Harri-Oak”
- 61 -
Case Study C it T t ti Pl
Case Study C it T t ti Pl
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 62/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Community Transportation PlanCommunity Transportation Plan
Corridor Characteristics
One-way couplet
High density residential
Commercial nodes
Middle school
Divided by freeway
Former streetcar suburb
Public stairways
Corridor Characteristics
One-way couplet
High density residential
Commercial nodes
Middle school
Divided by freeway
Former streetcar suburb
Public stairways
CBD
- 62 -
Case Study C it T t ti Pl
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 63/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Community Transportation PlanCommunity Transportation Plan
CBD
I-580
Commercial Node
Stairway
Residential
Narrow Sidewalk
- 63 -
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 64/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Community Transportation PlanCommunity Transportation Plan
Design Alternative 1
Pedestrian bulb-outs
Install bike lanes and sharrows
Change northern couplet to 2-
way vehicle operations
Reduce 5-legged intersection to
4
Eliminate channelized right turn
lanes
Design Alternative 1
Pedestrian bulb-outs
Install bike lanes and sharrows
Change northern couplet to 2-
way vehicle operations
Reduce 5-legged intersection to
4
Eliminate channelized right turn
lanes
Source: Design, Community, and Environment
N
- 64 -
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 65/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Community Transportation PlanCommunity Transportation Plan
Design Alternative 2
Widen sidewalks
Install bike lanes and sharrows
Reduce vehicle lanes (3 to 2)
Pedestrian bulb-outs
Bus bulbs and relocation to far side
Reduce 5-legged intersection to 4
Eliminate channelized right turn
lanes
Design Alternative 2
Widen sidewalks
Install bike lanes and sharrows Reduce vehicle lanes (3 to 2)
Pedestrian bulb-outs
Bus bulbs and relocation to far side
Reduce 5-legged intersection to 4
Eliminate channelized right turn
lanes
Source: Design, Community, and Environment
N
- 65 -
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 66/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Community Transportation PlanCommunity Transportation Plan
MMLOS Results - AM Peak-Hour SouthboundMMLOS Results - AM Peak-Hour Southbound
From To Scenario LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score
No Project B 2.74 E 4.39 C 2.77
Alt. 1 C 2.81 E 4.83 C 3.20
Alt. 2 B 2.73 E 4.26 B 2.70
No Project C 3.35 D 4.01 C 2.79
Alt. 1 C 3.35 D 4.00 C 2.79
Alt. 2 C 3.35 D 4.01 C 2.81
No Project C 3.36 D 4.05 C 3.03
Alt. 1 C 3.36 D 4.00 C 3.02
Alt. 2 C 3.38 D 3.99 C 3.19
No Project C 3.39 F 6.29 C 3.08
Alt. 1 C 3.39 F 5.16 C 3.06
Alt. 2 C 3.38 F 5.05 C 2.98
No Project C 3.33 E 4.89 C 2.79
Alt. 1 C 3.34 E 4.89 C 2.79
Alt. 2 C 3.33 E 4.87 C 2.79
No Project C 3.22 E 4.41 C 2.91
Alt. 1 C 3.23 E 4.40 C 3.00
Alt. 2 C 3.22 E 4.26 C 2.95
Westlake School 27th/ 24th/ Bay Pl
27th/ 24th/ Bay
Pl
Grand Ave
Facility
Dowling Associates, Inc., Multi-Modal Level of Service analysis using version 10.3 spreadsheet, March 2009
Bayo Vista Ave MacArthur/ Santa
Clara
MacArthur/
Santa Clara
Pearl St
Pearl St Westlake School
Segment & Downstream Signal Transit Bicycle Pedestrian
- 66 -
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 67/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Community Transportation PlanCommunity Transportation Plan
Preferred Alternative
Northern couplet to 2-way vehicle operations
Reduce vehicle lanes (3 to 2)
Install bike lanes and sharrows
Widen sidewalks and intersection bulb-outs
Bus bulb-outs and relocation to far side
Preferred Alternative
Northern couplet to 2-way vehicle operations
Reduce vehicle lanes (3 to 2)
Install bike lanes and sharrows
Widen sidewalks and intersection bulb-outs
Bus bulb-outs and relocation to far side
N
Source: Design, Community, and Environment
- 67 -
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 68/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Community Transportation PlanCommunity Transportation Plan
Preferred Alternative
5-legged intersection reduced to 4 legs
Removal of channelized right turn lanes
Shortened signal cycle length
Preferred Alternative
5-legged intersection reduced to 4 legs
Removal of channelized right turn lanes
Shortened signal cycle length
Source: Design, Community, and Environment
Existing Proposed
Improvement for all modes
Signalcoordination
Improvement for all modes
Signalcoordination
N
- 68 -
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 69/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Community Transportation PlanCommunity Transportation Plan
Benefits of MMLOS
Outreach
Effective communication tool to laypersons
Demonstrated serious analysis of all travel modes
Practitioner viewpoint led to:
Refinements to methodology for HCM
Sensitivity analysis
Software development
Benefits of MMLOS
Outreach
Effective communication tool to laypersons
Demonstrated serious analysis of all travel modes
Practitioner viewpoint led to:
Refinements to methodology for HCM
Sensitivity analysis
Software development
- 69 -
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
Case Study Community Transportation Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 70/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Community Transportation PlanCommunity Transportation Plan
Lessons Learned
Conduct traffic diversion analysis
Vehicle volume reduction benefits not quantified
Estimate vehicle speed
Speed reduction benefits not quantified
Bicyclist LOS
Results can exceed score of 6!
Difficult to get bikeways above LOS C
May need to calibrate to local conditions
Lessons Learned
Conduct traffic diversion analysis
Vehicle volume reduction benefits not quantified
Estimate vehicle speed
Speed reduction benefits not quantified
Bicyclist LOS
Results can exceed score of 6!
Difficult to get bikeways above LOS CMay need to calibrate to local conditions
- 70 -
Case Study General Plan
Case Study General Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 71/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
General PlanGeneral Plan
Adopted 2011
Dyett and Bhatia –
Prime consultant
How to incorporate
MMLOS
Adopted 2011
Dyett and Bhatia –
Prime consultant
How to incorporate
MMLOS
- 71 -
Case Study General Plan
Case Study General Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 72/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
General PlanG
Complete Street general policies
Designation of circulation system
Move away from motorist-only perceptions
Incorporate more multimodal designations
Complete Street general policies
Designation of circulation system
Move away from motorist-only perceptions
Incorporate more multimodal designations
Source: Dyett and Bhatia
- 72 -
Case Study General Plan
Case Study General Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 73/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
General PlanGeneral Plan
- 73 -
Case Study General Plan
Case Study General Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 74/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Prioritization of different street types by
mode
Prioritization of different street types by
mode
- 74 -
Case Study General Plan
Case Study General Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 75/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
More robust determination of improvementsMore robust determination of improvements
- 75 -
Case Study General Plan
Case Study General Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 76/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
MMLOS summary of factors for each modeMMLOS summary of factors for each mode
- 76 -
Case Study Specific Plan
Case Study Specific Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 77/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Adopted 2011
Guide to revitalize in a
sustainable manner
MMLOS analysis
Existing 2030 No Project
2030 Specific Plan
Adopted 2011
Guide to revitalize in a
sustainable manner
MMLOS analysis
Existing
2030 No Project
2030 Specific Plan
- 77 -
Case Study Specific Plan
Case Study Specific Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 78/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
MMLOS AnalysisMMLOS Analysis
Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS
North Existing 1.67 A 3.45 C 2.98 C 1.65 A 3.55 D 3.07 C
2030 No Project 2.11 B 3.49 C 3.08 C 1.78 A 3.61 D 3.19 C
2030 Specific Plan 2.07 B 3.18 C 2.84 C 1.76 A 3.29 C 3.04 C
Central Existing 1.08 A 3.50 C 3.06 C 1.10 A 3.49 C 2.96 C2030 No Project 1.22 A 3.54 D 3.15 C 1.27 A 3.55 D 3.07 C
2030 Specific Plan 1.20 A 3.48 C 3.03 C 1.23 A 2.95 C 2.83 C
South Existing 0.91 A 4.13 D 2.87 C 0.80 A 3.60 D 2.83 C
2030 No Project 1.07 A 4.22 D 2.99 C 1.06 A 3.65 D 2.96 C
2030 Specific Plan 1.04 A 3.69 D 2.81 C 1.05 A 3.57 D 2.85 C
Worse than exis ting
Worse than existing but better than 2030 No Project
Better than existing
Legend
Dowling Associates, Inc., Multi-Modal Level of Service analysis using CompleteStreetsLOS version 2.1.8, November 2010
AM Peak-Hour
Corridor
Section Scenario
Northbound Southbound
Transit Passenger Bicyclist Pedestrian
Transit Passenger Bicyclist Pedestrian
- 78 -
Case Study Specific Plan
Case Study Specific Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 79/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
MMLOS AnalysisMMLOS Analysis
Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS
North Existing 1.71 A 3.61 D 3.26 C 1.64 A 3.53 D 3.03 C
2030 No Project 1.79 A 3.70 D 3.43 C 2.08 B 3.63 D 3.23 C
2030 Specific Plan 1.76 A 3.35 C 3.20 C 2.05 B 3.30 C 3.08 C
Central Existing 1.10 A 3.57 D 3.20 C 1.08 A 3.44 C 2.84 C
2030 No Project 1.14 A 3.70 D 3.47 C 2.50 B 3.50 C 3.06 C
2030 Specific Plan 1.12 A 3.62 D 3.35 C 2.46 B 2.90 C 2.82 C
South Existing 0.95 A 4.36 E 3.10 C 0.79 A 3.58 D 2.76 C
2030 No Project 0.99 A 4.78 E 3.37 C 1.30 A 3.69 D 2.99 C
2030 Specific Plan 0.96 A 3.90 D 3.21 C 1.29 A 3.60 D 2.89 C
Pedestrian
Dowling Associates, Inc., Multi-Modal Level of Service analysis using CompleteStreetsLOS version 2.1.8, November 2010
Legend
Worse than existing
Worse than existing but better than 2030 No Proj ect
Better than existing
PM Peak-Hour
Corridor
Section Scenario
Northbound Southbound
Transit Passenger Bicyclist Pedestrian
Transit Passenger Bicyclist
- 79 -
Case Study General and Specific Plan
Case Study General and Specific Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 80/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Benefits of MMLOS
Provided baseline LOS for all travel modes
Reasonableness of LOS standards
Tested MMLOS for Specific Plan scenario
Multimodal roadway designations
Provides guidelines for improvements
Informs mitigation requirements
Provides an analysis tool
Benefits of MMLOS
Provided baseline LOS for all travel modes
Reasonableness of LOS standards
Tested MMLOS for Specific Plan scenario
Multimodal roadway designations
Provides guidelines for improvements
Informs mitigation requirements
Provides an analysis tool
- 80 -
Case Study General and Specific Plan
Case Study General and Specific Plan
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 81/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Lessons Learned
MMLOS works well analyzing fixed right-of-way
How to allocate space
Quantifies trade-offs between modes
Developing policy standards
Establish baseline
Conduct sketch what-if scenarios
May lead to prioritizing specific modes on streets
Lessons Learned
MMLOS works well analyzing fixed right-of-way
How to allocate space
Quantifies trade-offs between modes
Developing policy standards
Establish baseline
Conduct sketch what-if scenarios
May lead to prioritizing specific modes on streets
- 81 -
Overview Overview
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 82/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
HCM 2010 Course | Urban Street Concepts: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes
- 82 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case StudiesTraffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 83/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Worked with the City of
Pasadena to analyze
multimodal impacts of two projects
1. Road Diet Evaluation
2. Development Impact
Analysis
- 83 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 84/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
When implementing a road diet, many
concerns arise including:
How will the lane reduction affect the auto mode?
Will transit operations be affected?
How much will the bicycle mode improve as a result of
adding bike lanes?
Will there be any benefit to pedestrians?
Orange Grove Blvd. was analyzed using
multimodal LOS to address these concerns
- 84 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 85/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
11,200 ADT
1.6 Miles
- 85 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 86/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
- 86 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 87/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Issues with Current Cross Section
No facilities for bicyclists
Light traffic volumes for a large right-of-way (ROW)roadway
Higher speeds and wider crossing width which detract
from a neighborhood feel
- 87 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 88/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
- 88 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 89/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
- 89 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 90/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
- 90 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 91/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
The Result:
– Analysis showed that the road diet will result in minor changes to the
transit and auto mode
– The pedestrian and bicycle modes will improve between 9% and 20% if
the road diet is implemented on this corridor
- 91 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Road Diet Evaluation
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 92/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Transit
Auto speed decreased (-)
Pedestrian LOS improved (+)
Bicycle
Slower auto speeds (+)
Fewer through lanes for same volume (-)
Exclusive bike lane (+)
Pedestrian
More vehicles in lane nearest pedestrians (-)
Increased space between auto and ped (+)
Slower auto speeds (+)
- 92 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case StudiesTraffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 93/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Development Impact Analysis
- 93 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Development Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Develo
pment Impact Analysis
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 94/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Impact studies generally only consider auto
Pasadena finding it difficult to mitigate
certain areas
How might MMLOS provide another tool
A recent development project was selected totest multimodal LOS
- 94 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Development Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Develo
pment Impact Analysis
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 95/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Project consisted of:
Generated 4,900 daily trips
289 trips in the AM peak hour
488 trips in the PM peak hour
• 156 room hotel
• 38,000 ft2 of dining
• 14,000 ft2 retail
• 103,000 ft2 office
• 8,000 ft2 of bank
- 95 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Development Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Develo
pment Impact Analysis
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 96/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
- 96 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Development Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Develo
pment Impact Analysis
Facility Level Results for Colorado Blvd
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 97/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Facility Level Results for Colorado Blvd.
- 97 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Development Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Develo
pment Impact Analysis
Li k lt f C l d Bl d
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 98/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Link results for Colorado Blvd.
- 98 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Development Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Develo
pment Impact Analysis
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 99/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
- 99 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Development Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Develo
pment Impact Analysis
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 100/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
- 100 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Development Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies Develo
pment Impact Analysis
Transit
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 101/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Transit
Minimal effect, transit speed slightly slower (-)
Pedestrian LOS slightly worse (-)
Bicycle
Slower auto speeds (+)
Increased volume (-)
Pedestrian
More vehicles in lane nearest pedestrians (-)
Slower auto speeds (+)
All impacts minor, volume has only small
effect on LOS for non-auto modes
- 101 -
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case StudiesConclusions
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case StudiesConclusions
Lessons Learned:
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 102/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Lessons Learned:
Multimodal LOS not very sensitive to volume
changesMethodology much better at quantitatively
showing impacts to all four modes resulting
from physical attributes such as:
Cross section changes (Pedestrians/Bikes)
Trees or other buffers (Pedestrians)
Pavement condition (Bikes)
- 102 -
Overview Overview
What’s New for HCM 2010?What’s New for HCM 2010?
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 103/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
What’s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
What s New for HCM 2010?
Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis
Development of the HCM methodology
Pedestrian LOS model
Bicycle LOS model
Transit LOS model
Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies
Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies
Q&A
HCM 2010 Course | Urban Street Concepts: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes
- 103 -
Questions/CommentsQuestions/Comments
7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hcm-2010-new 104/104
HCM 2010 Overview & Multimodal Level of Service
Richard Dowling [email protected]
Kamala Parks [email protected]
Aaron Elias, [email protected]
104
- 104 -