Download - MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
1/51
Made possible by funding fromthe Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
Multimodal Level of
A Guide to Incorporating All Modes of Transportation intoLocal Jurisdictions Roadway Performance Measurements
Produced by
Service in King County
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
2/51
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
3/51
table o contents
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
Contents
Introduction 5
Overview 5intrOductiOn tO MultiMOdal level Of Service 5
the cOntentS Of thiS Guide 7
Overview o Level o Service 8
wh at iS lev el Of Ser vi ce? 8
hiStOry Of level Of Service 9
traditiOnal lOS trade-OffS 10
Local Guidance 13
waSh inG tO n Stat e Gr Ow th Ma na Ge Me nt ac t: lO S an d cO ncu rre nc y re qu ire Me nt S 13
KinG cOunty: cOuntywide level Of Service fraMewOrK GuidinG PrinciPleS 15
MOvinG tOward a MultiMOdal lOS and cOncurrency fraMewOrK in KinG cOunty 15
caSe Study: city Of KirKland 16
caSe Study: city Of Bellevue 17caSe Study: city Of redMOnd 20
Mult imodal Level o Service Models 23
Overview 23
hiGhway caPacity Manual 23
hiGhway caPacity Manual: 2010 25
fdOtS quality/level Of Service handBOOK 33
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
4/51
table o contents
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
tranSit caPacity and quality Of Service Manual 35
Bicycle level Of Service MOdel 36
PedeStrian level Of Service MOdel 37
SuMMary 37
Works Cited 39
Appendix 41
exaMPle lOS StandardS: cOMMunitieS PuttinG PreventiOn tO wOrK (cPPw) citieS 41
nchrP 3-70 (rePOrt 616): MultiMOdal level Of Service analySiS fOr urBan StreetS 43
hcM 2010 MOdel equatiOnS 49
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
5/51
5
5
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
1.0 introduction
Introduction
Overview
Introduction to Multimodal Level o Service
What is Multimodal Level o Service?
Standards versus Measures
Level o Service and Concurrency
The Contents o this Guide
Overview
As communities within Washington state and across the country recognize
the importance o passing and implementing Complete Streets policies,
there is a need to understand the inconsistencies within each communitys
transportation planning and analysis ramework. One such barrier toward
creating a more balanced transportation system comes in the orm o the
traditional transportation analysis and level o service (LOS) measures and
standards adopted by individual jurisdictions.
In general terms, LOS is a classication system used to describe the quality
o the mobility provided by a transportation system. It is an alphabeticalgrading system that provides a measurement o the number o vehicles a
roadway can accommodate over a given period o time. The concept o LOS
has been used by trac and transportation engineers or nearly 50 years to
describe conditions or automobile travel on existing or uture roadways.
Until recently, transportation engineering and planning in the United States
has ocused primarily around the movement o the automobile. Roadways
were designed and subsequently evaluated based on their perormance rom
the perspective o an automobile driver. LOS became the widely accepted
methodology or measuring the perormance o such roadways, which worked in
the avor o motor vehicle travel, oten at the expense o other roadway users.
Traditional LOS measures can oten contradict eorts to improve a streets
unctionality and saety or all users. For example, improving the unctionality
o a street to better serve bicyclists and pedestrians may result in a lower
vehicle level o service or that roadway, and thereore may not be acceptable
within the communitys adopted LOS standards. Meanwhile, improving the
LOS or a roadway, under a traditional LOS ramework, would likely mean
adding roadway capacity, which oten results in increased automobile
speeds, trac volumes and other actors that have been shown to decrease
saety or bicyclists and pedestrians. Without LOS measures and standards
in place that allow or all modes o transportation to be evaluated and
considered in transportation planning and analysis, adding roadway capacity,
or widening the roadway, would be seen only as a positive mitigation.
intrOductiOn tO MultiMOdal level Of Service
With increasing attention toward public health, local economies, livable
communities and the environment, and increased emphasis on the use o
transit, walking and bicycling, the traditional approach to trac operations
analysis should no longer be viewed as eective. Moreover, without LOS
standards that allow or trade-os between modes to be evaluated, the
ability or communities to und and build transit and nonmotorized projects
can be compromised in the event that it reduces the LOS or motor vehicles
(Milam).
In recent years, there has been a shit away rom considering only the
automobile as a mode o travel when designing urban streets. Moreattention is being placed on street designs that accommodate all users a
Complete Streets approach. Multimodal level o service measures and
standards the basis or this Guide are essential as communities look to
evaluate trade-os to each mode o transportation when designing streets.
Transportation policies, including the approach to trac analysis, should align
with the communitys vision. Moving toward a multimodal LOS ramework
is important as communities seek a more balanced and sustainable
transportation system. Adopting a multimodal LOS ramework can provide
communities with the data needed to make inormed decisions about modalimpacts when evaluating roadway designs.
5
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
6/51
6
6
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
1.0 introduction
w s Mmo l o S?
Multimodal LOS standards and measures are based on the person-capacity
rather than automobile-capacity o a transportation system. Measuring
multimodal LOS is a complex process given the degree o interaction
between modes, but there are existing models and application guides toassist agencies in calculating multimodal LOS. The 2010 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM), published in 2011, provides a comprehensive ramework or
evaluating multimodal LOS. This is discussed urther in Chapter 4.0, along
with other models used across the country.
A multimodal LOS ramework provides an analytical tool or cities to use
when looking at trade-os to each roadway user group (See Table 1 below)
and to support decision-making around the communitys vision. For
example, eorts to improve LOS or vehicles might mean adding capacity in
the orm o additional vehicle lanes and wider intersections. Being able todetermine the impacts to other modes through a multimodal LOS calculation
in this scenario might indicate to the decision makers that adding automobile
capacity is not the best solution to support the communitys vision.
Table 1: Example output chart: Multimodal LOS Framework
Mode Four-lane cross-section, nobicycle lanes
Three-lane cross-section,bicycle lanes, centerturn-lane
Auto C C
Bicycle F D
Pedestrian E DTransit D D
Conceptual
The objective o this Guide is to provide resources and examples o
multimodal LOS models, and to illustrate the importance o adopting
multimodal analytical tools and measures. Ultimately, however, it is up to
each community to decide what is acceptable in terms o LOS standards and
mitigation measures. The communitys adopted LOS standards should align
with the vision and values o that community. For instance, i a communitywants to improve walkability in its downtown core, the LOS standards should
refect this goal. Some communities have approached this by allowing lower
automobile LOS in certain areas, like commercial districts and urban villages.
Ss ss Mss
One clarication that should be made is in the use o the terms measuresand standards. When reerring to multimodal LOS measures, we are
reerring to the analytical methods or calculating the quality and level o
service provided to users o the transportation system, such as the methods
recommended in the HCM. This Guide ocuses primarily on measures.
When reerencing multimodal LOS standards, we are reerring to the policy
rameworks adopted by communities or acceptable LOS scores. For
instance, a community might adopt a policy that allows or an automobile
LOS o F in its downtown core, as long as bicycle, pedestrian and transit
LOS are at C or better. Adopting these standards should align with the
communitys vision.
l o S co
Throughout this Guide, the term concurrency will also oten be used in
describing LOS approaches and strategies. Washington states Growth
Management Act (GMA) contains a provision requiring local jurisdictions to
have in place or to have unded necessary transportation acilities concurrent
with new development. The Regulatory Concurrency provision o the GMA is
intended to provide a link between land use development and transportation
investment.
The investment in a communitys transportation system and thereore
its transportation concurrency is directly infuenced by the communitys
adopted LOS standards. For example, simply lowering adopted LOS
standards can allow development to proceed even i it results in increased
trac congestion. Conversely, in order to maintain the adopted LOS o a
roadway, a city may be required to devote resources to roadway widening in
order to permit development. Last, most cities concurrency methodology
does not support rigorous multimodal analysis due to the lack o reliable
measures or determining the impact o alternative mode improvements on
area mobility. While some jurisdictions discussed later in this Guide havetaken steps towards researching and implementing a multimodal concurrency
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
7/51
77
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
1.0 introduction
system, many cities still have LOS standards based on measuring vehicular
capacity o a roadway, which does not explicitly measure or recognize the
capacity provided by carpools, transit, or nonmotorized acilities.
The Washington State Legislature has been reviewing and revising the
GMA Concurrency law and the requirements contained therein or severalyears. In 2005, it authorized a study o multimodal concurrency to analyze
ways that transit, walking, and other modes could be incorporated into local
concurrency systems and level o service standards. The impacts o the
GMA concurrency requirements, as well as local examples o multimodal
concurrency and LOS research and implementation are discussed in greater
detail in Chapter 3.0 o this Guide.
the cOntentS Of thiS Guide
The purpose o this Guide is to illustrate the importance o utilizing a
multimodal LOS ramework when evaluating transportation systems and
roadway designs. Transportation analysis plays an integral role when
planning under the Growth Management Act; given this, it is critical that
communities have an adopted LOS ramework that supports the communitys
vision, whether it is or Complete Streets, improved public health or reduced
environmental impacts. This Guide provides an overview o the resources
and tools available or communities to develop and adopt a methodology or
evaluating the levels o service or all roadway users.
Chapter 2.0 provides an overview o the level o service concept and a
brie history o LOS, including how it came to be the prevailing method or
transportation analysis. This section introduces the Highway Capacity Manual
and provides a background on the multimodal LOS methods incorporated
into each edition o the Manual. Last, the chapter describes the potential
trade-os between traditional LOS measurements and those employed by
multimodal LOS models.
Chapter 3.0 describes the Washington State Growth Management Act
level o service and concurrency requirements and discusses planning
issues around these requirements. This chapter also gives an overview o
guiding principles behind the countywide LOS ramework. The remainder
o the chapter comprises a series o local case studies o communities in
Washington state that have researched and adopted multimodal rameworks
or transportation system evaluation. The most notable cities to have gone
so ar as to research and/or incorporate multimodal LOS models into their
comprehensive plans and transportation policies are Kirkland, Bellevue, and
Redmond.
Chapter 4.0 provides a more detailed and technical overview o the state
o the practice in multimodal LOS planning and development at a national
level. The main emphasis o this chapter is on the 2010 Highway Capacity
Manual(HCM) and the multimodal LOS models the new version oers to
planners and engineers since the HCMs last iteration in 2000. The HCM
2010 provides an integrated multimodal LOS ramework that represents
a comprehensive approach to evaluating trade-os or each user group
in dierent roadway environments. This chapter also touches on severalother examples o alternative-mode LOS rameworks, such as the Florida
Department o Transportations Quality/Level of Service Handbook, the
Transit Quality and Capacity Service Manual, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Level of Servicemodels.
The Appendix to this Guide contains additional relevant inormation on
multimodal LOS, including an overview o the National Cooperative Highway
Research Programs Report 616 (NCHRP Report 616), which inormed the
multimodal LOS methods incorporated in the HCM 2010, as well as an
overview o the multimodal LOS equations included in the HCM 2010.
The organization o this Guide is such that the user can easily locate whatever
might be desired without running across too much overlapping inormation
or redundancy. In short, Chapter 2.0 is an overview o traditional LOS and
an introduction to multimodal LOS; Chapter 3.0 eatures local applications
and case studies; and Chapter 4.0 is a detailed description o models being
used across the United States, with special emphasis on the HCM 2010. The
Appendix contains additional resources.
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
8/51
882.0 overview o level o service
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
Overview o Level o Service
What is Level o Service?
Why Measure LOS?
History o Level o Service
Highway Capacity Manual
Traditional LOS Trade-os
wh at iS le ve l Of Se rvi ce?
In general terms, level o service (LOS) is a classication system used to
describe the quality o the mobility provided by a transportation system. It isan alphabetical grading system that provides a measurement o the number
o vehicles a roadway can accommodate over a given period o time (Bucher,
Willis & Ratli Corporation, 2006). The concept o LOS has been used by
trac and transportation engineers or nearly 50 years to describe conditions
or automobile travel on existing or uture roadways (Milam). The denition
or LOS used by the Transportation Research Board in the Highway Capacity
Manual(2000) is:
Level o service (LOS) is a quality measure describing operational
conditions within a trac stream, generally in terms o such servicemeasures as speed and travel time, reedom to maneuver, trac
interruptions, and comort and convenience.
There are a variety o measures that LOS can be based on; most common are
congestion and vehicle delay. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has
developed and revised LOS standards or trac congestion. The traditional
measurement is based on a volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. The Highway
Capacity Manual(HCM) provides a specic methodology, widely used, or
estimating average vehicular delay at intersections. Delay is typically dened
as the dierence between actual travel time and travel time given no othervehicles or trac control devices.
The Highway Capacity Manualdenes six levels o service thresholds, based
on average through-vehicle speed, ranging rom LOS A to LOS F. While
research has concluded that travelers perceive less than six levels o service,
the A through F grading system has been retained to provide a greater
range o perormance levels upon which agencies can base their decisions.
Level o service ratings are generally classied as ollows (Transportation
Research Board, 2008):
LOS A: Low volume, high speeds, no delay. High reedom to select
desired speed and maneuver within trac stream.
LOS B: Stable fow with reasonable reedom to select speed.
LOS C: Stable fow, but speed and maneuverability are aected by the
presence o others and require care on the part o the driver.
LOS D: Approaches unstable fow. Speed and maneuverability areseverely restricted. Small additions to trac fow generally will cause
operational problems.
LOS E: Represents operating conditions at or near capacity o the
highway. Low speeds. Freedom to maneuver is extremely dicult. Any
incident can cause extensive queuing.
LOS F: Represents orced-fow operation at very low speeds. Operations
are characterized by stop-and-go trac. Vehicles may progress at
reasonable speeds or several hundred eet or more, and then berequired to stop (Level o Service Denitions).
One common concern with the A through F ramework is how the LOS
categories can be perceived in similar ways to school report card grades.
Under this perception, LOS A would be seen as the desired goal; however,
achieving LOS A or a roadway wouldnt necessarily be a desirable
outcome or most transportation systems. This would mean a roadway with
little to no use, or a roadway designed with signicantly more capacity than
necessary.
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
9/51
992.0 overview o level o service
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
w Ms lOS?
LOS measures can help communities identiy transportation system
deciencies and orecast uture transportation needs. LOS measures
specically multimodal LOS measures can provide inormation or
communities as they evaluate various Complete Streets designs.1 1
Measuring LOS helps a jurisdiction to:
Provide a consistent, systematic evaluation o existing conditions.
Produce results in terms that can be easily understood by
transportation proessionals and the general public.
Provide an objective method or identiying and prioritizing
transportation system improvements.
Allow or evaluation o improvement types and cross-sections
(Parks, 2011).
In 1994, the Municipal Research and Services Center o Washington states
Level of Service Standards Guide(Washington, 1994) outlined the ollowing
reasons or establishing LOS standards:
Provide a benchmark or evaluating transportation service
deciencies.
Dene what new public acilities and services will be needed to
support new development.
Provide a basis or assuring that existing services are maintained
as new development is served.
Provide a benchmark or monitoring progress toward meeting
growth management and public service goals.
1 Complete streets are roadways designed and operated to enable sae, attractive and comortable access andtravel or all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transportation users o all ages andabilities.
Alert public ocials to opportunities or improved eciency and
savings.
Can and should move beyond quantitative measures and provide
measures or the quality o acilities and services provided.
Provide an opportunity or neighboring jurisdictions to
coordinate LOS standards to assure consistency.
With recognition that multiple modes share the roadway environment,
the LOS measures used by a jurisdiction should look comprehensively at
the roadway perormance rom each users perspective, including cyclists
and pedestrians. Without a holistic evaluation ramework, the communitys
transportation planning and design will likely be biased toward a single
mode.
hiStOry Of level Of Service
Level o service is a ramework that transportation proessionals have used
or several decades to evaluate existing conditions or a mode o travel in a
transportation system. The concept o Level o service was rst introduced in
the 1965 version o the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM), published by the
Highway Research Board (HRB) and authored by the Committee on Highway
Capacity. The original denition o level o service, as it pertains to highways,
was given in the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual(HRB, 1965) as ollows:
Level o service is a qualitative measure o the eect o a number
o actors, which include speed and travel time, trac interruptions,
reedom to maneuver, saety, driving comort and convenience, and
operating costs.
LOS gained popularity given the accessibility o the methodologies and the
A through F rating system.
Over the years, multimodal LOS models have evolved to what is now
incorporated in the HCM 2010, an integrated multimodal LOS modelor urban streets. Recent research has inormed the development o the
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
10/51
10102.0 overview o level o service
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
multimodal LOS ramework in the HCM 2010 to incorporate multiple
actors and allow or more service-quality actors to be considered. Other
multimodal models, initially developed in the 1990s (and discussed in
Chapter 4.0) include the Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS(developed by Sprinkle
Consulting) and the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. These
models have been applied in jurisdictions across the United States.
hg cp M
The Highway Capacity Manualis a widely-used reerence manual containing
concepts, guidelines and computational procedures or calculating the
capacity and quality o service o various transportation acilities: reeways;
highways; arterial roads; roundabouts; signalized and unsignalized
intersections; and rural highways (Wikipedia). The HCM also includes
inormation about transit, pedestrians and bicyclists. Five editions o the
HCM have been published, with LOS procedures evolving through eachedition.
The 1950 HCM was a product o a collaborative eort between the Highway
Research Boards Committee on Highway Capacity and the Bureau o Public
Roads (now known as the Federal Highway Administration). The 1950 HCM
was the rst international manual ocused on the undamentals o highway
capacity (Transportation Research Board, 2010). Subsequent editions o the
HCM were published in 1965, 1985, 2000 and most recently, 2010.
The 1965 HCM introduced the concept o level o service. It included a short
chapter on bus transit in addition to the standard automobile LOS measuresand was the rst edition to introduce the widely adopted A through F
letter scale (McLeod). In the 1985 HCM, short chapters on pedestrian and
bicycle LOS were incorporated, as well as an expanded chapter on transit.
The bicycle chapter ocused primarily on bicycle impacts to vehicular capacity
and the pedestrian chapter provided a sidewalk and street corner LOS based
on average space per pedestrian (Vandehey & Bessman, Multimodal Level o
Service in the 2010 HCM).
Automobile LOS methodologies in the HCM 2000 estimated LOS or
intersections and roadway segments based on the ratio o vehicle demand tocapacity o the roadway termed V/C ratio or on the average seconds o
delay to vehicles at intersections. The LOS set orth in the HCM 2000 is the
most widely used measure o transportation acility perormance.
The HCM 2000 provided expanded chapters on pedestrians, bicycles and
transit. Pedestrian LOS measures included space per pedestrian, average
delay and average travel speed. The expanded bicycle chapter includedmethods or o-street paths and bicycle lanes at trac signals and along
urban streets. The bicycle LOS measures included average travel speed,
average delay and hindrance. The revised transit LOS included requency,
hours o service, passenger load and reliability. The HCM 2000 methods
ocus on capacity and delay; however, research (National Cooperative
Highway Research Project 3-70) inorming the HCM 2010 concluded that
capacity and delay are not the key actors to be considered when evaluating
quality o service. Other actors such as automobile volumes are o critical
importance to bicycle and pedestrian levels o service.
Up until the HCM 2010, pedestrian and bicycle LOS measures generally
refected a trac engineers perspective ocusing on delay, speed and
demand to capacity. Under these methodologies, a sidewalk with no
pedestrians using it would likely receive a pedestrian LOS o A, based
on measures o speed, delay and space; whereas a sidewalk with high
pedestrian volumes would receive a pedestrian LOS score o E or F.
The HCM 2010 the most recent edition is the culmination o a multi-
agency eort between the Transportation Research Board (TRB), the
American Association o State Highway and Transportation Ocials(AASHTO), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The approach
taken in the HCM 2010 was to ocus on the travelers perspective and to
allow trade-os between modes to be evaluated. It is the rst edition to
provide an integrated multimodal level o service methodology. Chapter 4.0
provides a detailed description o the LOS measures included in the HCM
2010.
traditiOnal lOS trade-OffS
As we now know, the traditional methodology or computing LOS ocuseson the mobility o automobiles. When standards are adopted around these
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
11/51
11112.0 overview o level o service
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
measures, the impacts to other modes o transportation are not at the
oreront o transportation decisions and practices. Transportation planning
processes within communities typically include adopting minimum LOS
standards (such as LOS C or D). I roadways exceed these ratings, they
are generally considered to ail. Mitigation or roadways with ailing LOS
ratings typically comes in the orm o adding capacity, ultimately creating
wider roadways and intersections. Without a multimodal LOS ramework
in place to evaluate the impacts to other modes o transportation in these
situations, the roadway widening may adversely impact the saety and
desirability o using other modes o transportation in the corridor.
There are many critiques to the traditional LOS approach, but most relevant
to this Guide are the incongruities between an automobile-ocused LOS and
the promotion o Complete Streets.
Additional critiques to the traditional LOS approach include:
Traditional LOS measures driver comort and convenience. Using
an automobile LOS without evaluating LOS or other modes
ails to consider relationships and conficts among other modes.
In eect, this prioritizes motor-vehicle travel and speed at the
expense o non-motorized travel.
Traditional LOS analysis does not refect the ability or roadway
rechannelizations to reduce trac and support modal shit. In
research (conducted by Sally Cairns) evaluating the 70 case
studies o beore and ater impacts where roadway capacity
was reduced, ndings indicated that trac volumes decreased
on average by 21.9 percent on the aected roadway, as well as
on alternative routes (Bhatia, 2005).
Traditional mitigation or improving LOS is adding roadway
capacity. Widening roadways and intersections reduces the
saety or bicyclists and pedestrians by increasing exposure time
at intersections and acilitating aster vehicle speeds.
Traditional LOS rames transportation problems as trac
congestion rather than problems such as mobility or non-drivers
or environmental, health and social costs.
Traditional LOS ignores the tendency o trac congestion to
maintain equilibrium. A common solution to improving LOS is
adding capacity, which has been shown to induce travel, urther
reducing the multimodal opportunities o the respective corridor.
Transportation research has shown that increasing roadway
capacity is not an eective long-term strategy or reducing
roadway congestion as it results in increased trac fow by
inducing more use o the roadway (EPA, 2001).
Because LOS policies infuence the size and type o
transportation inrastructure investment, i jurisdictions have LOS
standards that require them to maintain a high LOS or their
roadways, such as LOS C, they can require substantial resource
allocation or expansion projects. This may be an inecient use
o public unds; restructuring LOS standards can be particularly
timely or jurisdictions lacking inrastructure unds (Hilliard &Milam).
While transportation projects such as bicycle lanes and sidewalk
widening have positive environmental benets, traditional LOS
analysis may conclude that these projects result in adverse
environmental impacts (Bhatia, 2005).
Traditional LOS measures and standards can disincentivize
resource-ecient land use and inll development by requiring
high LOS standards to be maintained in order to permitdevelopment. This can encourage sprawling development
into areas where development will not result in exceeding the
adopted LOS standards.
Traditional LOS does not refect an understanding o the
relationships between transportation and the environment.
Increasing LOS or automobiles bears negative environmental
consequences, such as increased impervious surace, loss o
riparian habitat and degraded air quality.
Adopting a multimodalLOS ramework, on the other hand, can supporta communitys vision or creating a more balanced transportation system.
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
12/51
12122.0 overview o level o service
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
Traditional LOS measures give privilege to motor vehicles and ultimately
exacerbate the problems associated with increased motor vehicle
use. Aligning transportation policies with the measures used to analyze
transportation systems and on which to ultimately base decisions that
aect all roadway users, bears signicant potential to increase bicycling
and walking and improve public health and the environment. The benets
o adopting a multimodal LOS ramework and standards are similar to the
benets o adopting a Complete Streets policy: both help oster alternative
modes o transportation in a community while improving public health
and the environment. Adopting a multimodal LOS gives communities
the inormation and legal authority to design and implement Complete
Streets, thereby creating attractive places or people to engage in active
transportation, reducing air quality impacts, and supporting community
cohesion and livability.
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
13/51
13133.0 local guidance
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
Local Guidance
Washington State Growth Management Act: LOS and
Concurrency Requirements
The Issues
King County: Countywide Level o Service Framework Guiding
Principles
Moving Toward a Multimodal LOS and Concurrency Framework
in King County
Case Study: City o Kirkland
Case Study: City o Bellevue
Case Study: City o Redmond
waShi nG tOn Stat e Gr Ow th Man aG eM en t ac t: lO Sand cOncurrency requireMentS
In 1990, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) was
adopted by the Washington State Legislature as a way to manage growth
across the state and prevent sprawling development patterns. In addition
to requirements such as coming up with comprehensive plans that ocus
development in urban growth areas, the GMA requires the ollowing o local
jurisdictions:
RCW 36.70A.070: Pertaining to mandatory elements o each jurisdictions
Comprehensive Plan:
Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design or each
o the ollowing:
(6) A transportation element that implements, and is consistent with, the
land use element.
(B) Level o service standards or all locally owned arterials and transit
routes to serve as a gauge to judge perormance o the system. These
standards should be regionally coordinated;
(C) For state-owned transportation acilities, level o service standards
or highways, as prescribed in chapters 47.06 and 47.80 RCW, togauge the perormance o the system. The purposes o refecting level
o service standards or state highways in the local comprehensive
plan are to monitor the perormance o the system, to evaluate
improvement strategies, and to acilitate coordination between the
countys or citys six-year street, road, or transit program and the oce o
nancial managements ten-year investment program. The concurrency
requirements o (b) o this subsection do not apply to transportation
acilities and services o statewide signicance except or counties
consisting o islands whose only connection to the mainland are state
highways or erry routes. In these island counties, state highways
and erry route capacity must be a actor in meeting the concurrency
requirements in (b) o this subsection;
(D) Specic actions and requirements or bringing into compliance locally
owned transportation acilities or services that are below an established
level o service standard;
(E) Forecasts o trac or at least ten years based on the adopted land
use plan to provide inormation on the location, timing, and capacity
needs o uture growth;
(F) Identication o state and local system needs to meet current and
uture demands. Identied needs on state-owned transportation acilities
must be consistent with the statewide multimodal transportation plan
required under chapter 47.06 RCW;
Ater adoption o the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to
plan or who choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, local jurisdictions
must adopt and enorce ordinances which prohibit development
approval i the development causes the level o service on a locallyowned transportation acility to decline below the standards adopted
http://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2047%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20chapter.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2047%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2047%20.%2080%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2047%20.%2080%20%20chapter.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2047%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20chapter.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2036%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A.040.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2036%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A.040.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2047%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20chapter.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2047%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2047%20.%2080%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2047%20.%2080%20%20chapter.htmhttp://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2047%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2047%20.%2006%20%20chapter.htm -
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
14/51
14143.0 local guidance
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
in the transportation element o the comprehensive plan, unless
transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts
o development are made concurrent with the development. These
strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride
sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation
systems management strategies. For the purposes o this subsection(6), concurrent with the development means that improvements or
strategies are in place at the time o development, or that a nancial
commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies
within six years. (Washington State Legislature)
wsgo S Go Mgm a, lOS corms
As discussed in the introduction to this Guide, local governments planning
under the GMA are required to establish concurrency systems and LOS
standards within their Comprehensive Plans. These systems and standards
ultimately serve as the ramework or permitting development and identiying
deciencies in the transportation system. I transportation inrastructure
can remain concurrent with development by maintaining the adopted LOS,
a uture development may be permitted. The GMA requires denial o a
proposed development, however, i its impacts would result in LOS dropping
below the adopted standards. That said, i the jurisdictions LOS standards
only pertain to automobiles, then building a Complete Street may be at odds
with the GMA legal requirements (i it reduces the automobile LOS or the
respective acility).
Cities and counties are also required under the Regulatory Concurrency
requirement o the GMA to adopt six-year capital acilities plans with the
inclusion o measurable LOS standards or specic types o capital acilities.
As part o their capital acilities plans, local jurisdictions are required to
estimate capacities and orecast uture needs or all acilities covered in their
plans.
t isss
Despite the GMAs best intentions to discourage sprawling development andpromote transportation alternatives, the level o service and transportation
concurrency requirements can eectively contradict theses goals. Because
the majority o communities planning under the GMA ramework utilize
traditional LOS measures and standards, requiring cities to maintain these
standards can encourage the development o auto-oriented streets and auto-
oriented land use patterns. With the measures o LOS limited to automobile
trac congestion, maintaining adopted LOS standards typically meansadding automobile capacity, which is inconsistent with eorts to promote
a multimodal transportation system and reduce environmental impacts
(Comeau, 2009).
An example o a city experiencing diculties with the contradictory nature
o these regulations comes rom the Whatcom County city o Bellingham.
Bellingham recognized that the structure o its LOS ramework was not
allowing it to permit development in a highly developable corridor because
it wasnt able to add additional capacity to the roadway. While signicant
development potential remained along this corridor, due to GMA LOS andconcurrency requirements, the city had to impose a building moratorium
along the corridor that lasted or nine months. Consequently, the city has
developed a multimodal LOS and concurrency ramework that will allow it to
consider LOS or other modes o transportation as part o its accepted LOS
standards when permitting development.
The LOS standards adopted by local jurisdictions are critical to establishing
a network o Complete Streets. I a citys LOS standards only refect vehicle
capacity and demand, and ail to incorporate the eects to other modes
o transportation, the types o projects that receive unding will be biasedtoward those that only improve automobile LOS (Municipal Research and
Services Center o Washington). Moreover, cities may be required to
dedicate signicant resources to roadway expansion projects in order to
maintain their adopted LOS standards.
While the GMA requires cities to adopt LOS standards and ensure
transportation concurrency when permitting development, it is up to the
local jurisdiction to determine what those LOS standards look like. The only
requirements to this end are that the LOS standards should be regionally
coordinated. The city o Bellingham realized ater years o working withconventional volume-to-capacity LOS standards based on the Highway
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070 -
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
15/51
15153.0 local guidance
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
Capacity Manualthat it wasnt possible to promote urban inll development
while maintaining existing LOS standards. In order to meet the state law
without developing an entirely new measurement methodology, the city
council adopted a policy that allowed or an LOS o F on specic arterials.
In 2008, the city adopted a new methodology or multimodal transportation
concurrency, based on person trips available by concurrency service area.The city continues to meet the legal requirements under the GMA, but has
much more fexibility in its transportation planning and project design. See
Bellingham Municipal Code, Section 13.70, Multi-modal Transportation
Concurrency Requirements (Comeau, 2009).
KinG cOunty: cOuntywide level Of ServicefraMewOrK GuidinG PrinciPleS
The ollowing Countywide Level o Service Framework Guiding Principleswere adopted by the Growth Management Planning Council on July 21,
1993 in response to Countywide Planning Policy T-4. They are provided as
advisory guidelines or local jurisdictions to consider as they develop level o
service standards (King County, 2010).
Use a multi-modal LOS approach: Jurisdictions should use a multi-modal
approach or long-range transportation planning. Instead o relying on
traditional measurements or passenger cars, new LOS standards should
encourage the use o transit, transportation demand management, and
nonmotorized travel.
Establish non-single occupancy vehicle mode split goals: Local
jurisdictions should work with METRO to establish non-single occupancy
vehicle mode split goals.
Develop (supply-side) transit perormance measures: METRO should
develop supply-side transit LOS measures that include service availability
and service quality.
Develop demand-side transit perormance measures: In order to achieve
non-single occupancy vehicle mode split goals, jurisdictions shouldadopt policies and implement actions that support transit investments.
Develop regional LOS standards and thresholds: Local jurisdictions, the
state, and transit agencies should work with the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC) to develop LOS standards or regional acilities.
Average arterial LOS: Jurisdictions will determine the appropriate areas
or corridors to measure LOS.
Vary LOS standards by land use or growth management objectives:
The LOS standard should vary by diering levels o development
patterns and growth management objectives. For example, lower arterial
standards that tolerate more congestion should be established or Urban
Centers. Transit LOS standards may also vary based upon population and
employment densities.
Support the Countywide land use vision: Each jurisdiction should devise
their LOS approach in ways that support the Countywide land use vision.
Develop a nonmotorized LOS component: Local jurisdictions should
develop a nonmotorized component o their LOS standard. For
example, jurisdictions may use a checklist that indicates whether or not
undamental nonmotorized policies, standards, and acilities are in place.
Include state acilities in LOS evaluations
Determine LOS thresholds at the local level: Each jurisdiction will
determine LOS thresholds and weights appropriate or their jurisdiction
that are consistent with the Countywide vision.
Establish interlocal agreements: Applying LOS standards may use
interlocal agreements with adjacent jurisdictions to coordinate LOS
methodologies and resolve dierences.
MOvinG tOward a MultiMOdal lOS andcOncurrency fraMewOrK in KinG cOunty
In our region, three cities stand out in their multimodal concurrency planning:
Redmond, Bellevue and Kirkland. In 2006, the City o Kirkland set a goal
to establish level o service standards that encourage development o a
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
16/51
16163.0 local guidance
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
multimodal transportation system. In 2008, downtown Bellevue was chosen
as the site o a multimodal concurrency pilot project conducted by Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Finally, in 2009 the City o Redmond went
so ar as to adopt a Multimodal Plan-Based Concurrency System to manage
the pace o development while providing transportation improvements or all
users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, drivers and transit riders. This sectiono the guide looks at each jurisdictions pursuit o multimodal concurrency in
more detail and discusses the dierences o each.
caSe Study: city Of KirKland
In September o 2006, the City o Kirkland nalized revisions to its
Comprehensive Plan. A sought-ater goal o the 2006 update was to
Establish level o service standards that encourage development o a
multimodal transportation system (Goal T-5). Ater much study anddiscussion, the City o Kirkland decided that an intersection capacity
technique was the best choice or measuring level o service and developing
level o service standards. Today, Kirkland uses dierent level o service
standards or dierent modes o travel.
v l o S
For vehicular level o service, the city has developed an aggregated roadway
level o service measure that averages the capacity o signalized intersections
within a geographic area. This policy establishes a peak-hour level o service
standard or vehicular trac based on projected 2022 land use and roadnetworks. It is a two-part standard, based on the ratio o trac volume to
intersection capacity (V/C) or signalized system intersections.
The two standards or vehicular level o service are:
Maximum allowed subarea average V/C or signalized system
intersections in each subarea may not exceed the specic
calculated values.1
1 The level o service standards were calculated using a computerized transportation model shared with Bel-levue and Redmond, called the Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond (BKR) model. The standards are the outcomes oland use and transportation network choices entered into the model.
No signalized system intersection may have a V/C greater than
1.40.2
Underlying the standards is the idea that the system is not considered to be
ailing i the peak-hour is congested. Use o peak-hour or measuring level o
service is standard in the region and implies that trac will fow better duringthe rest o the day.
ts l o S
Mode split is used as the level o service standard or transit. By the year
2022, the City o Kirkland strives to achieve a transit mode split o 35
percent. This standard is expressed in terms o a desired percentage o
peak-hour home to work trips taken via transit. The 35 percent transit mode
split represents a long-term goal or the city to achieve through providing
improved transit accessibility, transportation demand management (TDM)
systems, ecient nonmotorized systems, shops and services located close
to home, and other strategies to encourage transit use rather than single-
occupancy vehicle (SOV) driving.
nomooz l o S
Nonmotorized level o service is expressed in terms o miles o completed
bicycle and pedestrian acilities and number o complete corridors, and
refects the desire o the city to create an interconnected system o bicycle
and pedestrian routes. The existing system has deciencies and gaps that
the proposed standards strive to complete. The decided standards orbicycle and pedestrian acilities are based on the priority routes indicated in
the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) and the citys Transportation
Program Evaluation Criteria.
As identied in the NMTP, Kirkland strives to achieve a level o service
standard by 2022 o:
59 miles o bicycle acilities.
2 A V/C o less than 1.0 means that the volume at the intersection is less than capacity. I the V/C is equal to
1.0, the intersections volume and capacity are equal. When the V/C is greater than 1.0, volume has exceededcapacity. As the V/C increases, the congestion at the intersection increases and the level o service gets worse.Kirkland strives to keep V/C ratios under 1.30 whenever possible, with a maximum V/C ratio set at 1.40.
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
17/51
17173.0 local guidance
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
155 miles o pedestrian acilities.
Six east-west and our north-south completed pedestrian
corridors.
Four east-west and two north-south completed bicycle corridors.
The City considers the ollowing actors when determining the location o
new bicycle and pedestrian acilities:
Completion o the interconnected system established in the
NMTP
Sae school routes and connections to public acilities
Commercial centers
Regional pedestrian and bicycle routes
dssso
Although very high, the V/C ratios in Kirklands vehicular level o service
standard are acceptable to the city, as is typically the case with other
jurisdictions, because there is oten a limited amount o unding available to
improve the ratio. In addition, Kirkland recognizes that it is not possible or
a city to build its way out o congestion, even with unlimited unds. Road
widening has been shown to have quality-o-lie impacts that many Kirkland
residents nd unacceptable.
Additionally, the vehicular standards set orth by Kirkland are based on
congestion becoming worse in the uture. Kirklands Comprehensive Plan
states, The need to move to alternative modes becomes all the more clear
when we can see the peak-hour vehicular level o service orecasted or the
uture (page IX-15).
With regards to the transit and nonmotorized level o service standards,
Kirkland will need to reevaluate its metrics once the transit mode split is
reached and the nonmotorized network is built out and completed. For
transit, this may mean setting the mode split bar even higher or uture
years. Likewise or nonmotorized level o service, it may mean increasing the
number o miles o non-motorized acilities to be built by a specied year,
as per a uture NMTP update. However, or both transit and nonmotorized
modes, it may also mean shiting to a calculated level o service similar
to that outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual that looks at the
perormance o existing segments, intersections and acilities.
rsos
City of Kirkland Comprehensive Plan, September 2006 Revision, Chapter IX
Transportation.
caSe Study: city Of Bellevue
In 2008, the Washington State Legislature allocated unding or the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to conduct a pilot project demonstrating
the process or analyzing multimodal concurrency within a regional growth
center. PSRC, in conjunction with King County Metro, selected downtown
Bellevue as a case study with the intent o developing a scalable multimodal
concurrency measurement and analysis ramework that other jurisdictions
could employ to manage multimodal travel demand and potentially
incorporate into their concurrency management systems.
The ocus o the pilot project was multimodal concurrency within the long-
range planning process, coined Planning Concurrency by the project team.
In contrast to the existing Regulatory Concurrency that typically has a ve-to six-year horizon, the longer horizon associated with Planning Concurrency
allows the ability to incorporate multimodal levels o service into the local
and regional long-range planning eorts.
rgo, Pg Mmo co
Jurisdictions use Regulatory Concurrency to evaluate the ability o a planned
transportation system to accommodate additional travel generated by a
proposed development. The proposed development may only proceed to
construction i the jurisdiction determines that the additional trips producedby the development would not violate the level o service standards
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
18/51
18183.0 local guidance
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
established through the jurisdictions comprehensive planning process.
However, as this Guide makes clear, many cities still have level o service
standards that are based on measuring V/C ratios at intersections and that do
not explicitly measure or recognize the capacity provided by carpools, transit
or nonmotorized acilities.
In June 2009, PSRC prepared a report on the downtown Bellevue pilot
project entitled PSRC and City of Bellevue Multimodal Concurrency Pilot
Project. The report ound that in growth centers, all modes are needed to
meet travel demand; and that roadway, transit and land use planning need
to be done together and reinorced with investment decisions to ensure that
local growth can be supported.
One intended result o the pilot project was to introduce a new approach to
Regulatory Concurrency that addresses additional modes o travel (bicycle,
pedestrian and transit) and that can be replicated by all Washington stateRegional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) and jurisdictions.
The proposed Planning Concurrency alternative builds o o uture land
use inputs (population and employment) as well as roadway and transit levels
o service, all o which are established through a jurisdictions comprehensive
planning process. Forecasted trips are compared with roadway and
transit levels o service to determine gaps in the ability o the planned
transportation system to accommodate estimated demand in each mode.
I a gap is identied, the implementing agency perorms a market analysis to
determine i and/or where eciencies and other improvements in the transit network
can be achieved. Trips that remain un-served by a more ecient and eective
transit network are then accommodated through a multimodal concurrency
approach that utilizes a variety o strategies, including TDM, changes in land use,
bicycle or pedestrian connectivity improvements, and roadway capacity expansion.3
Multimodal concurrency thus serves as a process or incorporating a multimodal level
o service that can be used in either Regulatory o Planning Concurrency processes.
3 While road widening has quality-o-lie impacts that some communities such as Kirkland, discussed above fnd unacceptable, the prioritization o one strategy type over another remains a local policy decision.
Mo O
The proposed Planning Concurrency analysis approach occurs in three broad
steps, which are described in limited detail below. This section ocuses
specically on the suggested evaluation metrics proposed in Step 1, as these
are most relevant to the discussion o multimodal level o service metrics andstandards.
Step 1: Concurrency Evaluation
In the rst step, orecast travel demand is compared with the planned
capacity o the transportation system. I the analysis concludes that the
transportation system is adequate, then the proposed development can be
constructed and no urther work is required. In its report, the project team
suggested potential measures or alternative modes o travel, discussed
below.
Suggested roadway level o service metrics:
Highway Capacity Manual intersection-based level o service
Highway Capacity Manual roadway segment-based level o service
Suggested transit level o service metrics:
Load actor average ratio o load to capacity
Capacity (supply) seats in time period in study area
Load (demand) riders in time period in study area
Speed average transit speed on all transit segments within the
city boundary
Headway average headway on all routes serving the study area
Reliability roadway level o service in study area (as proxy) in time
period
Service coverage percent o transit service area that is
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
19/51
19193.0 local guidance
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
accessible where transit service area is dened by the desired
type o possible service4
Suggested bicycle level o service metrics:
Presence o o-road bicycle acilities,
5
expressed as the ratio oland area in the total quarter-mile buers around all o-road,
nonmotorized acilities to total land area within the study area
The ratio o centerline miles o roadway with bicycle amenities 6
to centerline miles o roadway without bicycle amenities within
the study area
Other actors to be considered:
Posted vehicle speed limit
Proportion o heavy vehicles in the roadway trac volume
Connectedness o acilities to open bicycle use (including
multimodal connections)
Availability o end-o-trip acilities such as bicycle lockers and
showers
Suggested pedestrian level o service metrics:
Presence o sidewalks, measured as the total ratio o block aces
with complete, passable sidewalks to the total number o block
aces within the study area
Intersection density expressed as a ratio o walkable intersections
per square kilometer in the study area
Other actors to be considered:
4 Example: Three housing units per acre or hourly bus service. Accessibilit y would be measured as a quarter-mile network buer rom all active bus stops and a hal-mile buer or rail.
5 Defned as a acility physically inaccessible to motor vehicles, even i it lies within general roadway right-o-way.
6 Where bikes share the general roadway, including amenities such as bike lanes and wide shoulders.
Posted vehicle speed limit
Presence o a buer between pedestrian space and vehicle
lanes
Street width
Presence o mid-block crossings
Presence o crosswalks and pedestrian amenities including
waynding
Topographical challenges
Step 2: Gap/Problem Identifcation
I Step 1 nds that concurrency has not been met, a gap must be determined
between the originally proposed uture transportation system and a scenariothat would meet concurrency.
The gap is then translated into units such as person trips or other quantiable
terms that would allow scenario testing to be conducted under Step 3.
Problems in the system arise either because too many people are trying to
use a mode (a person-trip gap) or a given proportion o the system is simply
inadequate to support many trips at all (a quality o service gap).7
Step 3: Strategy and Design Testing
Finally, transit, TDM, bicycle, pedestrian and roadway strategies are designedand tested to close the gaps and meet concurrency requirements. The
design o a set o uture transportation investments to meet concurrency
across all dimensions should integrate all individual modal eorts into one
comprehensive picture.8
7 Methods or identiying gaps along with a downtown Bellevue case study are discussed in more detail inthe pilot project report.
8 Methods o modal strategy design along with a downtown Bellevue case study are discussed in moredetail in the pilot project report.
l l d
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
20/51
20203.0 local guidance
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
dssso
In the past several years, the Washington State Legislature has made several
changes to the Regulatory Concurrency statute o the GMA; however,
there has not been a comprehensive rewrite o the Regulatory Concurrency
requirements that clearly states how multiple modes o transportation canbe or should be incorporated into concurrency. In act, no ormal ramework
under the GMA exists that would ensure roadway and transit level o service
standards in local comprehensive plans are coordinated with transit agency
short- and long-range planning. Such a legal ramework could help ensure
that growth centers such as Bellevue, Redmond and Kirkland are adequately
served by the transportation systems needed to make development work.
PSRC, King County Metro and the City o Bellevue have developed a good
initial ramework or evaluating the level o service o alternative modes in
our region, but more needs to be done. For example, additional pedestrianand bicycle metrics should be explored as more innovative inrastructure
treatments are identied and implemented on our local and regional
roadways.
Furthermore, as identied in the pilot program report, additional exploration
into how the proposed metrics respond to a range o input may be necessary
or success o the multimodal level o service ramework. For example, the
transit metric output is based on a ridership assumption. Analyzing how this
output changes based on dierent assumptions would give jurisdictions more
inormation on which to base a transit concurrency standard.
Although this ramework or evaluating multimodal level o service is
more prescriptive than the City o Kirklands level o service guidelines or
transit, bicycles and pedestrians, it is still not clear how to grade the
level o service or a specic mode and set standards or that mode within
a jurisdiction. The ramework was developed beore the 2010 Highway
Capacity Manual, which includes clearly dened algorithms or evaluating
modes o travel. Perhaps as uture research and expansion o the downtown
Bellevue multimodal concurrency pilot project is conducted, the model
will grow stronger and more useul across our region, and ultimately get
incorporated into the concurrency requirements o the GMA.
rsos
PSRC and City of Bellevue Multimodal Concurrency Project A Special
Report to the Joint Transportation Committee, prepared by Puget Sound
Regional Council in consultation with City o Bellevue and King County
Metro, June 2009.
caSe Study: city Of redMOnd
Redmonds Transportation Master Plan (TMP) was established in 2005 and
included a Transportation Facilities Plan (TFP) based on Redmonds 2022
vision or a land use/transportation balance. In June 2009, Fehr & Peers
prepared a report or the City o Redmond entitled City of Redmond
Multimodal Plan-Based Concurrency System. The report outlined a tool or
managing the pace o development in the city while providing transportationimprovements or all roadway users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, drivers
and transit riders. This new concurrency system was developed as part o a
multi-year planning process to update the Redmond Comprehensive Plan
approved by the Redmond City Council in 2004.
In October 2009, the City o Redmond adopted its Multimodal Plan-
Based Concurrency System. The overall concept or the new concurrency
system stemmed rom the TMP analysis o 2022 land use (as contained in
the Comprehensive Plan) and the 2022 TMP. The TMP concluded that in
2022, the Citys transportation system would be near capacity in the PMpeak hour o travel. To maintain concurrency, the City determined that it
must appropriately pace land development with multimodal transportation
improvements and strategies.
As noted throughout this Guide, conventional planning practice determines
transportation impacts by calculating the number oautomobile trips that
will be generated by orecasted land use. Using a multimodal approach, the
new plan-based concurrency system relies on a mode-neutralmeasure known
as the mobility unit, which is measured in terms operson miles traveled
rather than vehicle miles traveled or automobile delay.
3 0 l l d
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
21/51
21213.0 local guidance
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
tsg o tspoo co
As part o the concurrency review process or a proposed development,
each proposal must be analyzed to determine the number o mobility units
expected to be generated by the development. The demand or mobility
units is then compared to the available mobility units within the citys Six-YearProgram, as required by the GMAs Regulatory Concurrency requirements. I
sucient mobility units are available, then the development is considered to
be concurrent. However, i the development is deemed not concurrent, then
the applicant must provide additional mobility units o capacity or wait until
sucient mobility units become available.9
Under the transportation concurrency test, city sta calculates the net new
mobility unit demand based on existing and proposed land use inormation
provided by the applicant in a Transportation Concurrency Application.
This land use inormation is used along with a Development Mobility UnitCalculator to determine the existing mobility unit demand, new mobility unit
demand and net new mobility unit demand.
cg Pso Ms t
Two methods are used to calculate person miles traveled in Redmond. The
rst method uses what is called the Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond (BKR) model
o travel demand along with the PSRC travel model to produce composite
orecasts o person trip by mode.10 The models are also used to calculate
trip lengths by mode.
The second method used to calculate mobility units is termed the person-
mile calculator. This method uses a spreadsheet tool to combine
travel characteristics rom the travel demand model and trip generation
characteristics rom the Institute o Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Report (7th Edition). Person miles are calculated using a multi-
step process:
9 Mobility units become available as additional transportation projects are unded and committed by the Citywithin its Six-Year Program (e.g. Transportation Improvement Program and Capital Investment Program).
10 The 2022 BKR demand model was originally developed or the Citys TMP. This included the orecast growthin land use rom 2005 to 2022, plus network changes expected by 2022.
Step A: Identiy PM peak hour vehicle trip generation rates or generalized
land use categories using ITE data.
Step B: Vehicle trips are converted to person trips by applying an average
vehicle occupancy rate and a mode split percentage. Average vehicle
occupancy denes how many people are in the vehicle, and the modesplit denes the proportion o people traveling in vehicles to total persons
traveling via all modes. Since the ITE data are based on national survey
results, oten in suburban settings, the City o Redmond study team applied
a conservative average vehicle occupancy rate o 1.12 and a vehicular mode
split o 90 percent.
Step C: Calculate an average trip length actor or each land use type,
varying by land use as documented in the Redmond Transportation Impact
Fee Program (updated 2007).
Person miles are the product o person trips (Step B) and trip length (Step C).
Person miles, calculated by land use type, are added to produce a citywide
estimate o total person miles. Application o this process is discussed
in detail in the Fehr & Peers report, and is not necessarily relevant to this
Guides ocused discussion o multimodal level o service.
dssso
Although Redmonds approach to concurrency is a departure rom the typical
concurrency system currently in place in Washington state, the Redmond
system meets the intent o concurrency as laid out in the GMA.
Redmonds system was described at the beginning o the section as mode
neutral, in that it does not look at specic modes in the way Bellevues
Multimodal Concurrency Pilot Project did, or even to a lesser degree the
City o Kirklands multimodal level o service laid out in its Comprehensive
Plan. Instead, mode split denes the proportion o people in vehicles
compared to total persons traveling in Redmond. Redmond uses a 90
percent SOV rate, which refects o national averages. It also matches the
2005 SOV rate included within Redmonds travel model, validated or 2005.
Redmond and many other Puget Sound cities plan to have much lower
SOV percentages in the uture Redmonds target is 70 percent. The city,
3 0 l l id
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
22/51
22223.0 local guidance
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
however, believes that the value used in their analysis seems to be consistent
with national averages inherent in the ITE trip generation data.
With regard to SOV assumptions, a specic trac study and modal count
would potentially strengthen the person-mile calculator and produce
dierent results. Certainly as time goes on and i environmental actorssuch as gas prices continue to shit mode splits toward alternative means o
travel (transit, biking, walking) the 90 percent SOV rate will no longer be
accurate and may produce unintended results with regards to concurrency.
The overall analysis in place, however, appears to be a straightorward
method o tracking concurrency in Redmond and making adjustments to
ensure that the city meets its concurrency standards now and in the uture.
rsos
City of Redmond Multimodal Plan-Based Concurrency System, prepared or
the City o Redmond by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, June 2009.
City of Redmond Multimodal Plan-Based Concurrency System
Transportation Concurrency Administrative Guidelines, City o Redmond,
October 2009.
4 0 l i d l l l i d l
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
23/51
23234.0 multimodal level o service models
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
Mult imodal Level o Service Models
Overview
Highway Capacity Manual
HCM 2000
HCM 2010
FDOTs Quality/Level o Service Handbook
Transit Capacity and Quality o Service Manual
Bicycle Level o Service Model
Pedestrian Level o Service Model
Summary
Overview
Various models have been developed to calculate level o service (LOS) or
various modes o transportation. According to a state-o-the practice
survey conducted through National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) 3-70, there are three major proessional manuals typically
reerenced by public agencies when evaluating multimodal highway level oservice. These manuals are the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM), Floridas
Quality/Level of Service Handbookand the Transit Capacity and Quality of
Service Manual.
While various multimodal LOS models exist, traditional approaches to
evaluating transportation system perormance ocus primarily on measuring
automobile LOS. The conventional methodology or calculating automobile
LOS is detailed in the HCM 2000. While the HCM 2000 includes LOS
measures or bicycles, pedestrians and transit, surveys have indicated that the
recommended methodologies are not entirely applicable to these modes.
This chapter will summarize some o the leading level o service models, with
special emphasis on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. The HCM 2010
provides the most recent and possibly the most comprehensive model or
calculating multimodal LOS as an integrated ramework. The HCM 2010
multimodal LOS was developed through extensive research conducted as
part o the NCHRP Project 3-70, discussed in greater detail in the Appendixo this Guide.
Models such as the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual(TCQSM),
the Bicycle LOS (BLOS)model and the Pedestrian LOS (PLOS)model are
specic to their respective modes and do not allow or an easy comparison
across modes. They still provide, however, a comprehensive ramework or
evaluating LOS or these modes.
hiGhway c aPacity Manual
The Highway Capacity Manualby the Transportation Research Board (TRB)
is commonly used as the transportation engineering and planning standard
in evaluating transportation acilities. According to the TRB, it is a division
o the National Research Council, which serves as an independent adviser
to the ederal government and others on scientic and technical questions
o national importance. The HCM is one o the most commonly used
manuals or LOS guidance, specically or computing automobile LOS.
The HCM provides LOS measures, thresholds and calculation procedures
or auto, transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes. The our transit LOSmeasures provided in the HCM 2000 are adapted rom the six presented
in the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. The Pedestrian and
Bicycle LOSmeasures are based on research conducted or the Federal
Highway Administration (Rouphail, Recommended Procedures or Chapter
13, Pedestrians, o the Highway Capacity Manual, 1999 and Rouphail,
Recommended Procedures or Chapter 14, Bicycles, o the Highway Capacity
Manual, 1999).
The primary dierence between the HCM 2000 and HCM 2010 (relevant to
this Guide) is the multimodal LOS ramework included in the HCM 2010.Because the HCM 2000 and its LOS procedure is currently the most widely
4 0 l i d l l l i d l
4 0 l i d l l l i d l
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
24/51
4.0 multimodal level o service models
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
used version, however,
this section will provide
a summary o its
contents as it relates to
multimodal LOS and the
weaknesses associatedwith its recommended
approach rom a
multimodal perspective.
hg cpM 2000
The HCM 2000, which provides LOS procedures or auto,
transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes, is the most
widely used manual or calculating LOS. In contrast
to the HCM 2010, the HCM 2000 considers the our
modes separately. The HCM 2010 integrates all
modes into one chapter, making it easier to make
comparisons between dierent cross-sections. The
HCM 2000 procedures are also based primarily
on speed and delay. The HCM 2010 integrates
qualitative actors that are more appropriate to
determining the level o service provided or
bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users.
The Pedestrian LOS measures included in the HCM 2000are based on research conducted or the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) (Rouphail, Recommended Procedures
or Chapter 13, Pedestrians, o the Highway Capacity
Manual, 1999). The Pedestrian LOS analysis is computed
by counting pedestrians who cross a point over a certain
period o time (typically 15-minute intervals). This results
in what has been termed a fow rate. For sidewalks, the
estimation model is based on space per pedestrian whereas
at intersections, Pedestrian LOS is based on delay. Although
there are disadvantages to this model, the LOS is easy to
calculate and collect data or. One o the key disadvantages
to the model is that it does not take into account many
physical, environmental and psychological actors that
infuence the pedestrian experience. The image on this page
illustrates Pedestrian LOS scores based on the HCM 2000
methodologies. Under this approach, a sidewalk with no
pedestrians may receive an LOS A. This representation
shows how key quality o service actors are omitted rom
the HCM 2000 procedures (NY DCP, Transportation Division,
2006).
The Bicycle LOS measures included in the HCM are also
based on research conducted by the FHWA (Rouphail,
Recommended Procedures or Chapter 14, Bicycles, o the
Highway Capacity Manual, 1999), providing calculation
2424
Table 2: HCM 2000 LOS Criteria or Urban Street
Mode LOS Criterion Comments (NCHRP 616)
Auto Mean auto speed or through trac Only applies to arterials, not collector or local streets
Transit Hours o daily service, reliability These are the two segment LOS criteria or availabil-
ity and comort and convenienceBicycle Mean speed o bicycle through trac Applies only i designated bicycle lanes are present
Pedestr ian Mean speed o pedestrian through trac Appl ies only i sidewalk is present
Source: NCHRP Report 616
Table 3: HCM 2000 Bicycle LOS or Bicycle Lanes on Urban Streets-
Pedestrian LOS or sidewalksLOS Average Bicycle Speed LOS Space/Pedestrian
A >14 mph A >60 square eet
B 9-14 B 40-60
C 7-9 C 24-40
D 5-7 D 15-24
E 4-5 E 8-15
F
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
25/51
4.0 multimodal level o service models
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
procedures or o-street paths and designated bicycle lanes using mean
bicycle speed and mean control delay. The bicycle service measures
include average travel delay, average travel speed and hindrance. Table 2
provides the HCM 2000 Criteria or Urban Streets (including comments rom
NCHRP Report 616), and Table 3 displays the LOS categories or bicycle and
pedestrian modes as incorporated into the HCM 2000.
Major critiques to the HCM 2000 include the ollowing:
The LOS measures incorporated into the HCM 2000 are not
based on traveler perception surveys and cannot be compared
to measures included in the TCQSM and FDOT manuals.
Each mode is treated separately in the HCM 2000. For example,
the HCM 2000 does not provide a methodology to measure the
intersection LOS or all users, but rather relies on perormance
measures that are unique to each mode. Pedestrian LOS is
based on square eet/person and doesnt consider the delay
experienced at intersections or crossing pedestrians.
The HCM 2000 does not adequately account or physical,
environmental and psychological
actors that infuence the pedestrian
and bicycle experience. For instance,
the LOS calculations do not take into
account:
Motor vehicle trac volume
Trac speed
Intersection delay
Separation rom trac
Adjacent land uses
Driver yielding behavior
Automobile LOS is based on vehicle delay, which means that a
vehicle with one occupant receives just as much infuence as a
vehicle with 50 occupants (such as a transit vehicle). Thereore,
improvements that benet more than one SOV drivers would
have greater infuence on improving LOS than an improvement
that benetted a transit bus with 50 occupants (TransportationResearch Board, 2008).
hiGhway caPacity Manual: 2010
The HCM 2010 represents the th major revision to the Highway Capacity
Manual. The signicant changes to this version include the integrated
multimodal approach, as well as the inclusion o new research and an
increased emphasis on alternative tools. The multimodal ramework is based
on the research conducted through NCHRP 3-70, as described in the sectionabove. The organization o the HCM 2010 provides an integration o material
on bicycle, pedestrian, transit and automobile modes into several chapters,
rather than stand-alone chapters or each mode. Most content pertaining to
analysis o urban street acilities can be ound in Chapters 16, 17 and 18
2525
Table 4: HCM 2010 Intermodal Interactions
Impacting Mode
Mode aected Auto Ped Bike Transit
Auto Auto & HV volumes
Turning patternsLane congurations
Minimum green time
Turn confictsMid-block crossings
Turn conficts
Passing delay
Heavy vehicle
Blocking delaySignal priority
Ped Auto & HV volumesCycle lengthDriver yieldingTurn confictsTrac separation
Sidewalk crowdingCrosswalk crowdingCross-fows
Shared-path confictsBicyclist yielding
Heavy vehicleTransit stop queuesStop cross-fows
Vehicle yielding
Bike Auto & HV volumesAuto & HV speedOn-street parkingTurn confictsTrac separation
Shared-path confictsMin. green timeTurn confictsTrac separation
Bike volumes Heavy vehicleBlocking delayTracks
Transit Auto volumesSignal timing
Auto volumesSignal timing
Bike env. wualityBike volumes
Bus volumes
Source: (Parks, 2011)
4.0 multimodal level o service models
4 0 lti d l l l i d l
-
8/2/2019 MultimodalLOSGuide CBC
26/51
26264.0 multimodal level o service models
multimodallevelofserviceinkingcounty Made possible by unding rom the Department o Health and Human Services and Public Health Seattle & King County
Findings rom ocus groups were also infuential in developing the
multimodal ramework included in the HCM 2010. Key ndings included:
Many jurisdictions are not required to perorm multimodal
analyses and thereore typically do not perorm them.
Jurisdictions that do want to conduct bicycle and pedestrian
analyses do not nd the HCM 2000 capacity-based measures
useul.
Most bicycle and pedestrian acilities do not have capacity
issues, such that the HCM 2000 procedures are not applicable.
The HCM 2000 multimodal LOS methods ocus on speed, delay and space.
The research conducted through NCHRP Report 3-70 ound that these
are not the key actors in determining the quality o service provided or
bicyclists and pedestrians sharing a roadway environment. Factors such asautomobile volumes and speeds are o higher importance to bicycle and
pedestrian quality o service. Given these research ndings, the HCM 2010
considers a broader range o actors or analyzing bicycle and pedestrian
levels o service.
The HCM 2010 provides a quality o service approach, ocusing on the perception
o how well a acility operates rom the travelers perspective. The methodology
allows or evaluation o intermodal interactions and trade-os (see Table 4).
Multimodal LOS, as dened in the HCM 2010, measures the degree to which
the urban street design and operations meet the needs o each modes users.
The methods or calculating the multimodal LOS or urban arterials result in
an LOS or each mode, and not a combined LOS score (see Table 5).
Table 5: Conceptual Multimodal LOS Results (HCM 2010)
Mode AM Peak PM Peak
Auto C E
Transit B C
Bicycle C C
Pedestrian D D
Conceptual Model Results
ioo o hcM 2010 Mos
The guidance included in the HCM 2010 manual (as it relates to multimodal
LOS) covers methodologies or evaluating the capacity and quality o
service provided to distinct roadway user groups. The manual includes
quality o service calculations as well as an array o perormance-basedprocedures. There are three analysis levels or which the methodologies can
be applied: operational, design, and planning and preliminary engineering.
The operational analysis is the most detailed, with the greatest amount o
inormation to calculate. The design analysis requires inormation about
trac and signalization conditions, and the planning level analysis requires
only undamental types o data.
The multimodal LOS equations are divided into segments, signalized
intersections, unsignalized intersections and acilities. Segment and acility
LOS scores are calculated or all our modes, and signalized intersectionscores are calculated or automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians. Table 6
illustrates the service measures as included in the HCM 2010.
Table 6: HCM 2010 Se