hcm 2010 new

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


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




Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model


Q&A

HCM 2010 Course | Urban Street Concepts: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes

- 2 -

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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



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



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



Overview Overview




Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model


Q&A




Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model


Q&A


- 6 -

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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




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




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




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




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



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



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




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




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



Overview Overview




Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model


Q&A




Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model


Q&A


- 16 -

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Overview Overview


Brief history of HCM multimodal analysis

Development of the HCM methodology


Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model

Complete Streets and General Plan Case Studies

Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies

Q&A





Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model



Q&A


- 28 -

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



Pedestrian LOS: LinksPedestrian LOS: Links

- 29 -

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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



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



Wbuf WaA W1



)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



Pedestrian LOS: Signalized IntersectionsPedestrian LOS: Signalized Intersections

- 33 -

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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



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





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



Pedestrian LOS: SegmentsPedestrian LOS: Segments

- 37 -

d i OS SP d i LOS S

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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



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



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



Overview Overview





Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model



Q&A





Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model



Q&A


- 41 -

Bicycle LOS: LinksBicycle LOS: Links

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new




- 42 -


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new





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




- 46 -


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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




- 49 -


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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



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







Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model



Q&A





Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model



Q&A


- 53 -

Transit LOS:Transit LOS:

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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



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 -


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



Headway FactorHeadway Factor

)001.0/(434.100.4 +−= svh eF

Headway factor Number of transit vehicles

serving segment per hour

- 56 -


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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



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







Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model



Q&A





Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model



Q&A


- 60 -

Case Study C it T t ti Pl


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new




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 Community Transportation Plan

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new




CBD

I-580

Commercial Node

Stairway

Residential

Narrow Sidewalk

- 63 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new




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




Change northern couplet to 2-

way vehicle operations

Reduce 5-legged intersection to

4


lanes

Source: Design, Community, and Environment

N

- 64 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new





Widen sidewalks


Reduce vehicle lanes (3 to 2)


Bus bulbs and relocation to far side

Reduce 5-legged intersection to 4


lanes


Widen sidewalks

Install bike lanes and sharrows Reduce vehicle lanes (3 to 2)


Bus bulbs and relocation to far side

Reduce 5-legged intersection to 4


lanes


N

- 65 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new




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 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new




Preferred Alternative

Northern couplet to 2-way vehicle operations



Widen sidewalks and intersection bulb-outs

Bus bulb-outs and relocation to far side


Northern couplet to 2-way vehicle operations



Widen sidewalks and intersection bulb-outs

Bus bulb-outs and relocation to far side

N


- 67 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new





5-legged intersection reduced to 4 legs

Removal of channelized right turn lanes

Shortened signal cycle length


5-legged intersection reduced to 4 legs

Removal of channelized right turn lanes

Shortened signal cycle length


Existing Proposed

Improvement for all modes

Signalcoordination

Improvement for all modes

Signalcoordination

N

- 68 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new




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 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new




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


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



General PlanGeneral Plan

- 73 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



Prioritization of different street types by

mode

Prioritization of different street types by

mode

- 74 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



More robust determination of improvementsMore robust determination of improvements

- 75 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



MMLOS summary of factors for each modeMMLOS summary of factors for each mode

- 76 -

Case Study Specific Plan


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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


- 78 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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

- 79 -

Case Study General and Specific Plan


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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







Bicycle LOS model Transit LOS model



Q&A





Bicycle LOS model Transit LOS model



Q&A


- 82 -

Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case StudiesTraffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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


7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



11,200 ADT

1.6 Miles

- 85 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



- 86 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



- 88 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



- 89 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



- 90 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -



7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 (+)


- 92 -

Traffic Impact and Sensitivity Case StudiesTraffic Impact and Sensitivity Case Studies

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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



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 -




7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



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 -




7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



- 96 -




Facility Level Results for Colorado Blvd

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



Facility Level Results for Colorado Blvd.

- 97 -




Li k lt f C l d Bl d

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



Link results for Colorado Blvd.

- 98 -




7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



- 99 -




7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



- 100 -




Transit

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



Transit

Minimal effect, transit speed slightly slower (-)

Pedestrian LOS slightly worse (-)

Bicycle


Increased volume (-)

Pedestrian

More vehicles in lane nearest pedestrians (-)


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



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







Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model



Q&A

What s New for HCM 2010?




Bicycle LOS model

Transit LOS model



Q&A


- 103 -

Questions/CommentsQuestions/Comments

7/27/2019 HCM 2010 new



Richard Dowling [email protected]

Kamala Parks [email protected]

Aaron Elias, [email protected]

104

- 104 -

hcm 2010 new

Documents