Application of New Pedestrian Level of Service Measures

Transcription

1 Application of New Pedestrian Level of Service Measures Sacramento Area Council of Governments June

2 Table of Contents Sections 1. Purpose and Goals of Project 4 2. Terminology 5 3. Literature Review of Existing Analysis Tools 7 4. Methodology for Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis Case Study Area Selection Results of Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis Conclusions Next Steps Potential Variables for Regional Collection Appendices 35 Exhibits A. Pedestrian Terminology Venn Diagram 6 B. Description of Literature 9 C. Quantitative Factors Considered in Literature 10 D. MMLOS LOS Letter Grade Numerical Equivalent 13 E. PPM LOS Letter Grade Numerical Equivalent 14 F. Pedestrian LOS Performance Measures Point System 15 G. Maps of Woodland, CA 16 H. Map of Woodland, CA Case Study Area 17 I. Maps of Roseville, CA 18 J. Map of Roseville, CA Case Study Area 19 K. Summary LOS Table Woodland Study Area 21 L. Woodland Case Study PPM LOS Results Map 24 M. Woodland Case Study MMLOS Results Map 25 N. Summary LOS Table Roseville Study Area 27 O. Roseville Case Study PPM Results Map 28 2

3 Appendices A. MMLOS Methodology B. PPM Methodology C. Detailed PPM Results for Woodland Case Study Area D. Detailed MMLOS Results for Woodland Case Study Area E. Detailed PPM Results for Roseville Case Study Area 81 F. Walkscore.com Methodology

4 1. Purpose and Goals of Project Pedestrian level of service is a technical term for a very basic, simple concept: how supportive of pedestrian travel is the infrastructure in a given area and how well do other modes of travel interact with pedestrian travel? Areas with good pedestrian level of service (LOS) provide safe and supportive infrastructure for pedestrians. Recently published research papers and technical guidance provide detailed descriptions of data collection and analysis approaches to calculate numeric assessments of pedestrian LOS. The project goals are to: 1) Assemble recently published reports and studies on assessing pedestrian environment, pedestrian LOS, and other measures of pedestrian accessibility; 2) Prepare tests of at least two assessment approaches in subareas within the region; 3) Compare the assessment approaches on the difficulty and level of effort to assemble the necessary data, and sensitivity to data inputs; and 4) Identify the most important pedestrian LOS variables, as evidenced by the results of s analysis. This work will support several pedestrian planning initiatives. For, this project identifies candidate pedestrian LOS data collection items, which may merit concerted effort to assemble at the regional level. Comprehensive regional data on pedestrian accessibility and pedestrian environment would be useful in s I PLACE 3 S software, and for s travel demand forecasting programs. For local agencies, a comprehensive regional pedestrian environment data source would be a great starting point for more detailed, local assessments of pedestrian LOS. 4

5 2. Terminology Before discussing the models selected to use in this analysis, it is important to define some of the terms being used in this report. Walking Infrastructure and Pedestrian Level of Service walking infrastructure are physical elements on a street segment which serve pedestrians, or which affect the feeling of safety, security, convenience, or comfort of pedestrians using that street segment. Objective measures which define and quantify these feelings of pedestrians using a roadway segment are defined as pedestrian level of service measures. Level of service measures typically generate a numeric score that translates into a letter grade (A F). Pedestrian Oriented Land Use and Pedestrian Demand Land uses, both the type and the mix of uses in a given area, strongly affect the level of demand for walking as a means of travel by residents of and visitors to an area. Some land uses are known to generate relatively high levels of walking: schools, civic institutions like museums and libraries, hospitals, and some shopping districts or malls. Other land uses generate low levels of pedestrian demand: agricultural uses, industrial uses, etc. Mixing of complementary uses (e.g. housing near to jobs centers, shopping near residential areas, etc.) in close proximity can increase the possibility of and demand for walking as a mode of travel. In some areas, where parking is provided offsite, or where transit stations are located, high levels of walking are generated by residents, workers or visitors getting to or from their primary mode of travel (e.g. walking from a public parking lot to a workplace or a restaurant, or from home to a transit station). Pedestrian Accessibility Accessibility refers to the ability to access land uses via a specified mode of travel, accounting for the ease or difficulty of doing so by measures like travel time. Measures of accessibility must take account simultaneously of the opportunities for engaging in daily activities (work, school, shopping, personal business, etc.), and the ability to access these opportunities using the infrastructure and services provided for travel. Pedestrian accessibility must take account of the pedestrian infrastructure available for walking, as well as the likelihood of needing to walk generated by the land uses served by the pedestrian infrastructure. This complex relationship between infrastructure and land use is illustrated in Exhibit A. This report focuses on evaluation of the infrastructure for walking and measures of pedestrian LOS. In the literature review in the next section, staff reviewed many different pedestrian measures, including pedestrian accessibility and walkability models. However, the two models we ultimately chose to use for this report are both LOS models. The two methods were used not to pick a winner in terms of evaluation of pedestrian LOS, but to evaluate which factors and variables were important to both methods, and identify likely resources to undertake an effort to assemble regional data to support evaluation of pedestrian LOS in the future. 5

6 Exhibit A: Pedestrian Terminology Venn Diagram Walking Infrastructure Pedestrian Accessibility Pedestrian Oriented Land Use Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks Landscaped buffers Parking lanes Street widths Pedestrian accessibility is defined as the overlap or connection between the walking infrastructure elements and land uses in a given area. Physical Characteristics: Land Use types Land Use Mix Block sizes Location of Parking Spaces Operational Features Traffic Volumes Speed limits Measurement: Level of Service e.g. A thru F score Areas with good walking infrastructure and land uses which generate a high level of pedestrian activity have good walking accessibility. Operational Features Transit stations/stops Measurement: Pedestrian demand e.g. pedestrian trips generated per day 6

7 3. Literature Review of Existing Analysis Tools In the literature review, staff looked at level of service, accessibility, and walkability analyses. Exhibit B below provides a brief description of each of the sources considered. Reflective of the complex nature of the pedestrian environment, the sources often covered multiple factors to varying extents, including: qualitative elements (e.g. perceived comfort, safety) land uses (e.g. destinations, frontage, block ratios) engagement (e.g. schools, communities, local agencies) transit access (e.g. stops, frequency) facilities present or absent (e.g. sidewalks, amenities) roadway characteristics (e.g. traffic volume, number of lanes) However, the focus of this project is to recognize factors that can be evaluated in s I PLACE 3 S model and quantitative, measurable, transportation related elements were considered in each model (Exhibit C). Selection of Models for Use in Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis After reviewing the literature, we selected two models to evaluate the case study areas. We selected two pedestrian LOS models because we felt that the models that considered surrounding land uses (walkability models) were too subjective or did not appropriately address the physical pedestrian infrastructure. We also felt that by selecting two models that both assessed pedestrian LOS we would better be able to identify common factors and draw better conclusions from the results of the analysis. Finally, by selecting two pedestrian LOS models, the data collection process was simplified and expedited. However, we do recognize the importance of walkability measures, and future study related to walkability is something that could further inform s I PLACE 3 S software and s travel demand forecasting programs. This idea is discussed further in Section 7. Conclusions. Although these models are both pedestrian LOS models, they were selected for very different reasons. The Multi Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) model (source m in Exhibits B and C) was selected because of the breadth of factors it considers, its outstanding supporting documentation, and its wide use in traffic analyses at the local level. The Pedestrian Performance Measure (PPM) model (source n in Exhibits B and C) was selected because its simple, point based system is more accessible to non technical staff and can be customized to include or exclude certain factors. While not as detailed as the MMLOS model, this model captures many of the most important factors that affect pedestrian LOS. 7

8 Breadth of Factors Considered The MMLOS model considers a wide variety of factors in determining pedestrian LOS that is unmatched by any other model we encountered in the literature review. The fact that the MMLOS model evaluates bicycle, auto, and transit LOS also makes it appealing to a wider audience. Broad Based Acceptance and Use The MMLOS model is now the standard pedestrian LOS model used in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. Therefore, it is likely to be used by more professionals across the county. As it becomes more widely used, it will become more accessible for users of different technical ability levels. Model Design and Customization The PPM point system is simple and easy to understand, making it accessible to engineers, modelers, planners, and advocates alike. The PPM model is also highly customizable. Because it is a simple point system, elements can be added, removed, or adjusted to take into account additional factors that may not be considered in the base model. Model Presentation and Supporting Documents The MMLOS model and the PPM model both offer excellent background documents that clearly describe the data inputs needed and the methodology used to generate a LOS score. While the MMLOS model is much more complex than the PPM model, the MMLOS model supporting documents are thorough and would be extremely useful in replicating the analysis in different locations with different street treatments. 8

9 Exhibit B: Description of Literature Literature Reviewed (a) UC Berkeley Technical Guide for Pedestrian Safety Assessments (b) WALKSacramento School Audit (c ) PA DOT Walkability Checklist (d) FHWA Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines & Prompt Lists (e) Walk Score Methodology White Paper (f) Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI) (g) Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (h) Univ. of South Carolina Sidewalk Assessment Tool (i) Urban Design Los Angeles Walkability Checklist (j) PBIC Walkability Checklist (k) Walk San Diego Walkability Checklist (l) ITE Pedestrian Mobility and Safety Audit Guide (m) NCHRP Multi Modal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets (MMLOS) (n) Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS Performance Measures and Standards (PPM) Description The Pedestrian Road Safety Audits (PSAs) evaluate pedestrian facilities, traffic, and traffic control devices. This report assists local governments and communities in efforts to improve pedestrian safety at specific locations, create welcoming environments for pedestrians, and enhance overall walkability, livability, and economic vitality. The local pedestrian advocacy group in Sacramento, WALKSacramento, conducts walk audits around schools in city of Sacramento, Sacramento County, and city of Citrus Heights. The audit focuses on deficiencies and recommends remedies to local departments of transportation, school districts, and the California Department of Transportation. This checklist includes factors present/absent, and focuses on the comfort and safety of walking within the community. The guidelines provide detailed descriptions of potential pedestrian safety issues; the prompt lists are a general listing of potential pedestrian safety issues (pedestrian facilities, traffic and traffic control devices). Walkscore.com methodology calculates destination/amenity locations, distance to the location, and "ped friendly metrics" such as block lengths and intersection density. This index uses observational survey data to calculate an environmental quality score for roadway segments based on five categories of indicators: intersection safety, traffic characteristics, street design, land use, and perceived safety. This pedestrian audit uses observational survey data to calculate a pedestrian environment score for roadway segments based on five categories of indicators: environment, pedestrian facility, road attributes, walking/cycling environment, and a subjective assessment. The Sidewalk Assessment Tool uses five items to assess each segment: levelness, artificial items blocking the path, natural items blocking the path, cleanliness (litter), and surface condition. The walkability guidance and checklist is to be applied to all projects seeking discretionary approval, primarily Site Plan Review and Zone Changes. Includes facilities present/absent, land uses, parking/driveways, and amenities. This checklist is used by many jurisdictions across the country. It covers sidewalk connectivity and condition, crossings, driver behavior, and perceived safety and comfort. This checklist covers facilities present/absent, measured, and traffic conditions (e.g. sidewalk connectivity and condition, crossings, signals, perceived traffic conditions, and ambience). Pedestrian specific factors include: facilities present/absent, measured, and traffic conditions (e.g. sidewalk connectivity and condition, crossings, signals, etc.); also looks at the overall environment, traffic/drivers, transit, and bicycle facilities. This model measures the degree to which the urban street design and operations meet the needs of each major mode s users (automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit). This is a points based analytical tool to determine pedestrian level of service. 9

10 Exhibit C: Quantitative Factors Considered in Literature Traffic Conditions Factors Present / Absent Quantitative Factors Considered (a) UC Berkeley Technical Guide for Pedestrian Safety Assessments (b) WALKSac School Audit (c ) PA DOT Walkability Checklist (d) FHWA Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines & Prompt Lists (e) Walk Score Methodology White Paper (f) Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI) (g) Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (h) Univ. of South Carolina Sidewalk Assessment Tool (i) Urban Design Los Angeles Walkability Checklist (j) PBIC Walkability Checklist (k) Walk San Diego Walkability Checklist (l) ITE Pedestrian Mobility and Safety Audit Guide Traffic volume x x x x x x # of lanes x x x x x Posted speeds x x x x x x x Walking path/sidewalk x x x x x x x x x x x x on street parking x x x x x x x buffers between walking path and street x x x x x x x x x x x trees x x x x x x x x x lighting x x x x x x x x x benches x x x x x x trash bin x x class I x x x x class II x x x x x class III x x x raised median x x x x x no raised median x x x pedestrian refuge x x no pedestrian refuge x x limited driveways x x x x x x (m) NCHRP MMLOS (n) PPM 10

11 Factors Measured (a) UC Berkeley Technical Guide for Pedestrian Safety Assessments (b) WALKSac School Audit (c ) PA DOT Walkability Checklist (d) FHWA Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines & Prompt Lists (e) Walk Score Methodology White Paper (f) Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI) (g) Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (h) Univ. of South Carolina Sidewalk Assessment Tool (i) Urban Design Los Angeles Walkability Checklist (j) PBIC Walkability Checklist (k) Walk San Diego Walkability Checklist (l) ITE Pedestrian Mobility and Safety Audit Guide frequent driveways x x x x x x crosswalks x x x x x x x x shoulder width x pavement condition x x x x x x x lane width x x x x x signalization/ intersection x x x x x x x x x grade x parking/turning lanes x x sight distance/visibility x x x x adjacent land use x x x x x x x traffic calming x ramps x x x connectivity x x x x distance to amenities x x building orientation/façade x x x sidewalk width x x x x x x x x x no obstructions x x x x x x x x x primary street user x x pollution level x sidewalk condition x x x x x x x (m) NCHRP MMLOS (n) PPM 11

12 4. Methodology for Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis Analysis Approach After identifying the two models for use in the analysis and selecting the case study areas, staff collected the data inputs necessary to evaluate the study areas. Data were collected both in the field at the case study locations and through existing sources, such as GIS files, Google Maps, aerial photos, and local jurisdiction data files. After collecting the data, used the two models to analyze the data. In the Woodland case study, the PPM model was used to analyze all segments. Then, a weighted PPM score was calculated for the entire study area. For the MMLOS model, only segments with a signalized intersection were evaluated. Therefore, a study area score was not computed, only individual segment scores for the eight signalized segments. For the Roseville case study, the PPM model was used to analyze all segments, and a weighted score was computed for the entire study area. The MMLOS model was not used. Once the study areas had been analyzed, staff compiled the results in tables (shown in Section 6. Results of Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis) and began to draw conclusions about the results (discussed in Section 7. Conclusions). Multi Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Model Methodology The MMLOS model used for these case studies was developed in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 3 70 and is used in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). In this paper, it will be referred to as the MMLOS model. The MMLOS model measures the degree to which the urban street design and operations meet the needs of each major mode s users (automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit). A combined LOS is not calculated; rather, each mode is considered separately and given an individual score and corresponding LOS. Although the MMLOS model produces scores for four modes, only the pedestrian score is reported in this analysis. The pedestrian facility score comprises a segment score, an intersection score, and a roadway crossing difficulty factor (RCDF), as indicated below. Pedestrian Facility LOS = (0.318*Segment Score *Intersection Score ) * (RCDF) The pedestrian Segment Score is determined by the perceived separation between pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Higher traffic speeds and higher traffic volumes reduce the perceived separation. Physical barriers and parked cars between the traffic and the pedestrians increase the perceived separation. The segment score considers the following factors (relationship in parenthesis): 12

13 Outside travel lane width (+) Bicycle lane/shoulder width (+) Buffer presence (i.e. on street parking, street trees) (+) Sidewalk presence and width (+) Volume and speed of motor vehicle traffic in outside lane ( ) Block length ( ) The MMLOS model also considers a pedestrian density score. If the density score is worse than the segment score described above, the density score is used in place of the segment score. If the density score is better than the segment score, the segment score is used. The pedestrian Intersection Score considers: Permitted left turn and right turn on red volumes ( ) Cross street motor vehicle volumes and speed ( ) Crossing length ( ) Average pedestrian delay ( ) Right turn channelizing island presence (+) The pedestrian Roadway Crossing Difficulty Factor (RCDF) measures the difficulty of crossing the street between signalized intersections. The RCDF worsens the pedestrian LOS if the crossing difficulty is worse than the noncrossing LOS for the facility. It improves the pedestrian LOS if the crossing difficulty LOS is better than the non crossing difficulty LOS. The RCDF considers the following: Delay waiting for safe gap to cross Delay diverting to the nearest signalized intersection to cross The output of the MMLOS model is a numerical value (1 6) that must be translated into a LOS letter grade. The letter grades used correspond to typical automobile LOS, where LOS A and LOS B indicate ideal conditions; LOS C and LOS D indicate satisfactory conditions; and LOS E and LOS F indicate failed conditions. See Exhibit D below for the numerical values that coincide with each LOS letter grade. Exhibit D: LOS Letter Grade Numerical Equivalents Score LOS Model <= 2 A 2 < Model <= 2.75 B 2.75 < Model <= 3.50 C 3.50 < Model <= 4.25 D 4.25 < Model <= 5.00 E Model > 5.00 F Notes and Cautions Although the MMLOS model recommends issuing a separate pedestrian facility score for each side of the street, we found that the facilities provided in the case study areas were fairly similar on both sides of the street. Therefore, only one pedestrian score is given for 13

14 each segment. The MMLOS model is calibrated for signalized intersections. Therefore, only segments with signalized intersections were analyzed with the MMLOS model. The full technical MMLOS model methodology can be found in Appendix A. Pedestrian Performance Measures (PPM) Model Methodology The second model used comes from Transportation Research Record 1538, entitled Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems. Unlike the MMLOS model, which uses complex and detailed formulas to evaluate pedestrian facilities, the PPM model uses a simple point system (0 21) that assigns a certain value to each criterion. Facilities earn points based on the number of criteria they meet. Like the MMLOS model, the PPM model considers more than one mode (pedestrian and bicycle), but this Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis only reports the pedestrian score. Also like the MMLOS model, the PPM model output is a numerical value that must be translated into a letter grade LOS. See Exhibit E below for the numerical values that coincide with each LOS letter grade. The PPM model considers the following factors: Presence, condition, and width of the pedestrian facility/sidewalk Maintenance issues with the pedestrian facility/sidewalk Curb cuts Number of driveways and side streets per mile Delay crossing side streets Conflict with left and right turning vehicles Side street crossing width Posted speed limit Presence of median Buffer between vehicle traffic and pedestrians Pedestrian amenities (benches, lighting, shade trees) Automobile LOS Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs and treatments The scoring rubric for the PPM model is shown in Exhibit F. For a full description of the criteria used in the PPM model, see Appendix B. Exhibit E: LOS Letter Grade Numerical Equivalent Score LOS Model > 17 A 17 >= Model > 14 B 14>= Model > 11 C 11 >= Model > 7 D 7 >= Model >3 E Model <=3 F 14

15 Exhibit F: Pedestrian Level of Service Performance Measure Point System CATEGORY CRITERION POINTS Facility Not continuous or non existent 0 (Max. value = 10) Continuous on one side 4 Continuous on both sides 6 Min. 5 wide & barrier free 2 Sidewalk width > 5 1 Off street/parallel alternative facility 1 Conflicts <22 driveways and side streets/mile 1 (Max. value = 4) Ped. signal delay 40 sec. or less 0.5 Reduced turn conflict implementation 0.5 Crossing width 60 ft or less 0.5 Posted speed <=35 MPH 0.5 Median present 1 Amenities Buffer not less than (Max. value = 2) Benches or pedestrian scale lighting 0.5 Shade trees 0.5 Motor Vehicle LOS E or F OR 6 or more travel lanes 0 (Max. value = 2) D and < 6 travel lanes 1 A, B, or C and < 6 travel lanes 2 Maintenance Major or frequent problems 1 (Max. value = 2) Minor or infrequent problems 0 No problems 2 TDM/Multi Modal No support 0 (Max. value = 1) Support exists 1 TOTAL 21 facility score = weighted average of segment scores 15

16 5. Case Study Area Selection Woodland Study Area Woodland, California was selected because it is reflective of other small cities in the Sacramento region. The area chosen, Woodland s commercial district and surrounding neighborhood, is generally an enjoyable place to walk, and would be a good area to test whether the models are able to capture the perception of good pedestrian LOS. Exhibit G: Maps of Woodland, CA North Boundary: South Boundary: East Boundary: West Boundary: Court Street Lincoln Avenue Cleveland Street California Street 16

17 Exhibit H: Map of Woodland, CA Case Study Area [INSERT] 17

18 Roseville Study Area The downtown Roseville, California area was selected because it is reflective of historic downtowns in other suburban cities in the Sacramento region. Additionally, staff felt this area is generally an enjoyable place to walk, and would be a good area to test whether the models are able to capture the perception of good pedestrian level of service. Exhibit I: Maps of Roseville, CA North Boundary: South Boundary: East Boundary: West Boundary: Douglas Boulevard 4th Street Earl Avenue B Street 18

19 Exhibit J: Map of Roseville, CA Case Study Area 8. 19

20 6. Results of Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis Two pedestrian LOS methods were applied in two case study areas within the region. The case studies were conducted to assess the level of effort needed to collect data elements required, and to help assess the sensitivity of the two models to various factors. The goal was not to definitively assess pedestrian LOS in either case study area, but to use the case studies to identify which data elements to prioritize for collection for a regional dataset on walking infrastructure in the region. Although significant help was provided by staff at both agencies in assembling data, the data and results presented below are s, and do not reflect the views of either the City of Woodland or the City of Roseville. Woodland Case Study PPM Results Using the PPM model, the segments in the Woodland case study area scored an average of 15.9 points, for an overall study area average of LOS B. The four segments along Main Street scored LOS A. Fifteen segments scored a LOS B, and three segments scored a LOS E. See Exhibits K and L for a complete list and maps of study area segments and their corresponding LOS scores. Appendix C shows detailed scoring tables for each segment in the study area. The four segments of Main Street scored LOS A. The point totals for these segments were only 1 2 points higher than the segments that scored LOS B, largely due to the fact that the sidewalks on Main Street are 8 feet wide rather than five feet. Also, since Main Street has more employers than most of the LOS B segments, the LOS A segments scored points for having TDM strategies in place. As noted above, the PPM and MMLOS models varied considerably in evaluating the same segments. These differences are discussed below. The segments that scored LOS B are all low speed streets with continuous pedestrian facilities/sidewalks that have pedestrian amenities (lighting, shade trees) and a buffer between the street and the sidewalk. It should be noted that buffer is defined differently between the MMLOS model and the PPM model. For the most part, these streets have marked crosswalks and curb cuts. However, the segments failed to achieve LOS A because the sidewalks did not exceed five feet, the segments have frequent driveway conflicts, and the area does not always have TDM strategies in place (especially on more residential streets). The three segments that scored LOS E are alleys. These were included to show the variation in scores possible for roadways that do not have pedestrian facilities. Since the PPM model heavily weights wide, well maintained, buffered pedestrian facilities, the alleys understandably scored low.

21 Segment Exhibit K: Summary LOS Table Woodland Study Area PPM Score PPM (out of 21) LOS MMLOS Score (1 6) MMLOS LOS California St. from Cross St. to W. Lincoln Ave. 16 B California St. from W. Main St. to W. Lincoln Ave B 3.23 C California St. from W. Court St. to W. Main St B 3.37 C W. Lincoln Ave. from California St. to West St. 16 B W. Lincoln Ave. from West St. to Grand Ave. 17 B 2.76 C W. Lincoln Ave. from Grand Ave. to Academy Ln./McKinley Ave B W. Lincoln Ave. from Academy Ln./McKinley to Cleveland St. 16 B W. Main St. from California St. to West St A 3.71 D Main St. from West St. to Grand Ave A 3.58 D Main St. from Grand Ave. to Academy Ln./McKinley 18.5 A Main St. from Academy Ln./McKinley Ave. to Cleveland St A W. Court St. from California St. to West St. 17 B 3.35 C Court St. from West St. to Cleveland St. 17 B 3.40 C Memorial Lane from West St. to Grand Ave. (alley) 3.5 E Grand Ave. from Lincoln Ave. to Main St. 17 B Academy Ln. from terminus to Lincoln Ave. 4.5 E Academy Ln./McKinley Ave. from Lincoln Ave. to Oak Ave B Jefferson St. from West St. to McKinley Ave B Saunders Wy. from Lincoln Ave. to Oak Ave. (alley) 5.5 E Cleveland St. from Court St. to Main St B Cleveland St. from Main St. to Lincoln Ave B 2.50 B Cleveland St. from Lincoln Ave. to Oak Ave. 17 B Study Area Score (weighted avg of segment scores) 15.9 B 21

22 Woodland Case Study MMLOS Results Eight segments in the study area included a signalized intersection and could be evaluated by the MMLOS model. One segment scored LOS B, five scored LOS C, and two scored LOS D. See Exhibits K and M for a complete list and maps of study area segments and their corresponding LOS scores. An overall case study area score was not computed because not all intersections/segments were included in the MMLOS model analysis. Appendix D shows detailed scoring tables for each segment analyzed by the MMLOS model. Cleveland St. from Main St. to Lincoln Ave. is the only segment to score LOS B. This score was achieved through a combination of low traffic volume (4,500 ADT), narrow road width, few left and right turning vehicles, a 25 mph speed limit, and on street parking. The segments that scored LOS C are all two lane roads with a short pedestrian crossing delay and few left and right turning vehicles. All LOS C segments have on street parking and a buffer between the curb and the sidewalk, which increase the perceived safety of pedestrians. Finally, all LOS C segments are low speed streets, with posted speeds between 25 mph and 35 mph. For the California St. segments, high volume cross streets with speed limits of 30 mph to 35 mph prevented a higher LOS. For the Court St. segments, high average daily traffic (ADT) and longer block lengths prevented a higher LOS. The segments that scored LOS D (Main Street segments) are four lanes with higher volumes of left and right turning vehicles. These segments do not have on street parking to act as a buffer for pedestrians. Even though the sidewalks are wider on Main Street than on the higher scoring segments, the MMLOS model does not give preference to sidewalks wider than five feet. Finally, these two segments experience higher traffic volumes (13,000 and 14,000 ADT), and one segment has a 35 mph posted speed limit. It is interesting to note that the Cleveland St. segment is the only segment that scored the same LOS in both the MMLOS model and the PPM model. This is discussed below in the Variation in LOS Score between MMLOS and PPM section. Variation in LOS Score between MMLOS and PPM The MMLOS model and the PPM model consider different factors and weight factors differently, causing variation in LOS scores for the same street segments. The most obvious example of this is the Main Street segments, which scored LOS A in the PPM model and LOS D in the MMLOS model. There are several reasons for this: 1) Traffic Volumes: the MMLOS model has an inverse relationship with traffic volume. As traffic volume increases, LOS decreases. The Main Street segments carry the most traffic in the study area, thus resulting in lower LOS. The PPM considers traffic volume indirectly by assigning points in a step fashion, based on the automobile LOS (i.e. LOS A, B, and C = 2 points, LOS D = 1 point, and LOS E, F = 0 points). Main Street has an automobile LOS C thus scoring the highest amount of points for that category. 22

23 2) On Street Parking: the MMLOS model has a positive relationship with on street parking and with any other permanent structures that act as a barrier between the street and the pedestrian facility. Main Street does not have on street parking or any barrier (street trees, large planters, etc.), consequently earning lower scores. The PPM model defines a buffer as any separation between the street and sidewalk (grass, flower beds, shrubs, etc), which Main Street does have. 3) Sidewalk Width: the MMLOS model does not give preference to sidewalks wider than five feet. The PPM model gives a bonus point for a sidewalk over five feet. 4) Roadway Width: the MMLOS takes into account the width of the primary roadway as well as the width of cross streets. The PPM model only looks at the width of cross streets. Main Street is wider than other segments in the study area, and thus scores lower in the MMLOS model. However, the cross streets are relatively narrow, which boosts scores in the PPM model. 5) Speed Limit: the PPM model s speed factor is binary. Streets with speed limits 35 mph and under get points, those over 35 mph do not. The MMLOS model addresses speed in a more linear fashion, where even small changes in speed on the primary or cross street can have an impact on the model output. This does not have a huge effect since the Main Street segments are all under 35 mph, but it does explain some of the difference in scores. 23

24 Exhibit L: Woodland Case Study PPM LOS Results Map 24

25 Exhibit M: Woodland Case Study MMLOS Results Map 25

26 Roseville Case Study PPM Results Using the PPM model, the segments in the Roseville case study area scored an average of 13.6 points, for an overall study area average of LOS C. One segment scored LOS A, eight segments scored LOS B, nine segments scored LOS C, and two scored LOS E. See Exhibits N and O for a complete list and map of study area segments and their corresponding LOS scores. Appendix E contains detailed scoring tables for each segment in the study area. Riverside Ave. from 3 rd St. to Bonita St. is the only segment to score LOS A. This LOS was achieved through a combination of continuous pedestrian facilities, pedestrian amenities, wide sidewalks, few driveway conflicts, low speed traffic, marked crossings, and curb cuts. The segments that scored LOS B are all low speed streets with continuous, well maintained pedestrian facilities/sidewalks that have pedestrian amenities (benches, lighting, shade trees) and few driveway conflicts. These segments also have narrow cross streets, and some have marked crosswalks, curb cuts, and buffers. These segments failed to reach LOS A because some segments have conflicts with right turning vehicles, some lack marked crosswalks, curb cuts, buffers, and pedestrian amenities, and some do not have sidewalks wider than five feet. The segments that scored LOS C are all low speed streets with continuous pedestrian facilities that are buffered from traffic. However, these segments also have narrower sidewalks, may lack pedestrian amenities, do not have TDM policies in place, and may have minor sidewalk maintenance issues. Many of these segments also lack marked crosswalks and curb cuts. The segments that scored LOS E have discontinuous or no pedestrian facility/sidewalk. Since many of the other point categories depend on having a pedestrian facility/sidewalk, segments that have a discontinuous or nonexistent facility cannot score higher than LOS D, even if they score the maximum points in other categories. For example, a segment cannot score points for having a buffer if no pedestrian facility exists to need buffering. Roseville Case Study MMLOS Results After collecting data and analyzing the case study area, staff was unable to apply the MMLOS model to this area, as only one segment contains a signalized intersection. It was determined that the level of effort to collect and analyze data for another case study area was beyond the scope of this project. 26

27 Roseville Case Study Area Results Segment Exhibit N: Summary LOS Table Roseville Study Area PPM Score (out of 21) PPM LOS 2nd St. from B St. to Riverside 14.5 B B St. from 2nd St. to 3rd St. 14 C 3rd St. from B St. to Riverside 13.5 C B St. from 3rd St. to 4th St. 14 C 4th St. from B St. to Riverside 14.5 B Riverside from 4th St. to Cherry 16 B Riverside from Cherry to 3rd St B Riverside from 3rd St. to Bonita 17.5 A Riverside from Bonita to 2nd St. 17 B Riverside from 2nd St. to Douglas 17 B Douglas from Riverside to Clinton 15.5 B Clinton from Douglas to Bonita 14 C Bonita from Clinton to Riverside 4 E Clinton from Bonita to Cherry 14 C Cherry from Riverside to Clinton 16 B Cherry from Clinton to Earl 12 C Earl from Cherry to Bonita 14 C Bonita from Clinton to Earl 12 C Earl from Bonita to Douglas 14 C Douglas from Clinton to Earl 5 E Study Area Score (weighted avg of segment scores) 13.6 C 27

28 Exhibit O. Roseville Case Study PPM LOS Results Map 28

29 7. Conclusions Critical Factors in Evaluating Pedestrian LOS Although both models had very different approaches to quantifying pedestrian LOS, there were several common factors that both models weighted heavily in the scoring. These factors include: Presence and condition of sidewalks Buffers between vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic Posted speed limit Number of lanes Traffic volumes Few conflicts with other modes Considerations for Using the MMLOS and PPM Models for Future Analysis Factors Considered and Data Needs The MMLOS model is very detailed and considers many factors; however, that level of detail requires intensive data collection that not all agencies have the resources to undertake. The MMLOS model is more suited to traffic engineers doing analysis for a specific project, where only a small portion of a street is being considered. The amount of effort necessary to evaluate entire corridors, neighborhoods, or cities is likely prohibitive, especially for smaller agencies. Complexity In addition to needing large quantities of data, the MMLOS model is complex. Casual users would be hard pressed to understand the relationships between variables. Again, for traffic engineers who work with these types of data frequently, this model would be a useful tool. For advocates and planners, however, the MMLOS model may not be a good fit for performing corridor and neighborhood analyses. Additionally, the MMLOS model is not readily customizable and takes a great deal of tweaking to account for varying treatments on roadways. For example, the version of the model used in this study was set up to analyze signalized intersections. This is acceptable on busy urban and suburban arterials where nearly every intersection is signalized, but it does not work as well in small downtown areas or residential neighborhoods. The MMLOS technical background documents and the Highway Capacity Manual outline modifications that would account for different roadway treatments, but that analysis is beyond the scope of this project. Consideration of Traffic Volume Average daily traffic (ADT) is the most heavily weighted factor in the MMLOS model. Even segments with relatively moderate traffic volumes (8,000 14,000 ADT) will find it difficult to score above average LOS. Only segments with very low volumes (4,000 6,000) scored well in the MMLOS model analysis. The PPM model, on the other hand, assigns points based on automobile LOS rather than separating out traffic volumes, number or lanes, and congestion 29

30 level. Doing so assumes 1) that all roads operating at an automobile LOS A, B, or C are safe for pedestrian travel or 2) that all high volume roads unsuitable for pedestrian travel will score an automobile LOS D, E, or F. Buffer vs. Barrier The PPM model considers any separation (3.5 ft or more) between the roadway and the pedestrian facility to be a sufficient buffer. The MMLOS model defines a buffer more like a barrier: a permanent or large structure that effectively blocks vehicular traffic from entering the pedestrian right of way. Examples of a barrier would be on street parking or continuous street trees. Consideration of Signal Spacing The MMLOS model takes into account block length when determining LOS. The PPM model does not. All else equal, the PPM model would score a well connected downtown street network and a sprawling business park the same, even though a downtown street with many connected destinations would likely be much more appealing to pedestrians. Level of Service vs. Walkability Because both the MMLOS and PPM models are LOS models, they do not take into account surrounding land uses nor do they assess the usefulness of pedestrian facilities. Exemplary pedestrian facilities will not be useful unless the surrounding land uses support businesses and services that attract and generate pedestrian traffic. For example, suburban neighborhoods often have nice pedestrian facilities, but the residential surroundings generate few trips other than fitness walking. Similarly, pedestrian facilities in areas that are extremely auto dependent would score well in these models but not necessarily be useful for pedestrians. One potential source for including a walkability measure in a future analysis is walkscore.com (described above in Section 3. Literature Review of Existing Analysis Tools). This website calculates a score (0 100) of the walkability of an area based on proximity to amenities, intersection density, and average block length. The amenities considered include grocery stores, restaurants/bars, shopping, coffee, banks, parks, schools, libraries/book stores, and entertainment venues. Appendix F contains the walkscore.com methodology. Walkscore.com does not take into account any of the infrastructure considerations that are at the heart of the MMLOS and PPM models, but it does provide an interesting perspective on the usefulness of an area s pedestrian facilities. Though not strictly part of this analysis, we evaluated the case study areas using the walkscore.com methodology. The Woodland case study area averaged a Walk Score in the mid 80s, while the Roseville case study area averaged in the mid 70s. This is a simple measure that could add a reality check to the LOS models, which are solely based on the quality of the pedestrian facilities, not the usefulness. 30

31 Replication in Other Study Areas In part, this Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis was a way to test pedestrian LOS models so that other agencies can perform their own analyses at other locations. Both the MMLOS and PPM models are suitable for evaluating pedestrian LOS. However, as it has been noted, the MMLOS model is extremely technical and is better suited for individual project analyses, rather than neighborhood walkability assessments. The point based system in the PPM model is better suited for analyses by advocacy and planning groups, especially considering the amount of customization possible simply by tweaking the point system. Opportunities for Future Analysis and Use hopes to incorporate some of the major determinants of pedestrian LOS into its modeling software for use in future planning analyses. 31

32 8. Next Steps This research project provided a good start to several efforts at : hopes to incorporate some of the major determinants of pedestrian LOS into its modeling software. anticipates conducting an analysis of pedestrian LOS throughout the region. For this effort, staff may develop a targeted pedestrian LOS model that uses the key factors identified in this research. Based on the amount of staff effort involved in this analysis, staff will be able to estimate the resources needed to conduct a pedestrian LOS analysis at a regional scale. This information will be valuable in applying for grant funds, and when seeking local agency involvement. The Transportation Committee recently directed staff to develop a way to identify regional priority bicycle and pedestrian projects. Assessing pedestrian LOS is one potential method to identify areas with the greatest infrastructure needs, particularly in areas with high pedestrian activity. 32

33 9. Potential Variables for Regional Collection In order to incorporate measures of pedestrian LOS into future modeling efforts, it will be necessary to collect, at the regional level, data inputs that affect pedestrian LOS. Because of the magnitude of such an undertaking, not all variables that affect pedestrian LOS can be collected. To remedy this, one of the main goals of this study was to identify the most important variables that can be collected regionally. These variables are listed and described below. While endeavors to collect and monitor as many of these variables as possible, the ability to do so largely depends on securing grant funding and leveraging local partnerships. Hence, these measures represent potential variables for regional collection. Although some measures, such as number of conflicts with other modes, were found to be significant determinants of pedestrian LOS, not all measures are appropriate for regional collection. For example, the cost of identifying all of the points of conflict between pedestrians and automobiles makes that variable all but impossible to collect at the regional level. Therefore, the measures we have identified below are not only significant variables, but also ones that feels would be feasible to collect regionally. 1. Presence and condition of sidewalks The presence and condition of sidewalks was heavily weighted in both the PPM and MMLOS models. Key considerations with this variable include: is there a sidewalk? Is the sidewalk continuous? How wide is the sidewalk? Are there obstructions on the sidewalk like utility poles or traffic light poles? Does the sidewalk have noticeable cracking or an uneven surface? Does the sidewalk include curb cuts? 2. Traffic volumes Pedestrians are more comfortable walking on streets with low traffic volumes. The greater the number of vehicles a pedestrian encounters when crossing the street, the greater the potential for conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. already maintains traffic volume data for some of the region s roadways, and many local jurisdictions maintain this data for their own communities. Of all the significant variables identified, traffic volume is the only one that changes throughout the day. Although Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was used in the PPM and MMLOS models, collecting peak hour and ADT volumes would allow for measurement of pedestrian LOS during the highest volume times of the day (morning and evening rush hour) and during midday. 3. Buffers between vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic Although the PPM model and the MMLOS model defined buffers differently, it is clear that having separation between pedestrian and vehicular traffic improved the pedestrian LOS. Identifying where on street parking exists appears to be a promising way to measure this variable, as both models considered occupied on street parking a 33

34 sufficient barrier. Other options for this variable include the presence of street trees or a landscaped/grassy parkway. 4. Posted speed limit On lower speed streets (35 mph or less), the posted speed limit did not have a great effect on pedestrian LOS. However, as speeds rise above 35 mph, pedestrian LOS declines quickly. Collecting the posted speed limit regionally would not only inform pedestrian LOS modeling, but also be useful for safety audits and analyses. 5. Number of lanes The greater the number of lanes a pedestrian encounters when crossing the street, the greater the potential for conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. Although the PPM model accounted for number of lanes indirectly, both models favored narrower streets and penalized wide streets. In addition to number of lanes, lane width is also an important variable worth considering collecting. Vehicles tend to travel faster when lanes are wider, regardless of the posted speed limit. Narrower lanes help to control traffic speed and shorten the crossing distance. 34

35 10. Appendices Appendix A: MMLOS Methodology 35

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 39

40 40

41 41

42 42

43 43

44 44

45 45

46 46

47 47

48 48

49 49

50 50

51 51

52 52

53 53

54 54

55 55

56 56

57 Appendix B: PPM Methodology Excerpt from: Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems Linda B. Dixon Transportation Research Record 1538 Pedestrian LOS Performance Measures Pedestrian Facility Provided Dominant Facility Type What are the characteristics of the pedestrian facility provided in the corridor? The dominant facility can either be noncontinuous or nonexistent, continuous on one side, or continuous on both sides. When a sidewalk facility has frequent gaps and missing segments it is noncontinuous. If the dominant characteristic is a sidewalk but the sidewalk has one short gap, the facility should be rated according to its dominant characteristic. Solitary short gaps in a sidewalk system should be considered a barrier within the existing facility. A roadway with a continuous sidewalk on one side and a few short sidewalk sections on the opposite side should be rated as having a continuous sidewalk on one side of the street only. Minimum 5 ft Wide and Barrier Free The sidewalk must be at least 5 ft wide for its entire length. The 5 ft clearance must be maintained around all utility poles, traffic signal poles, cafe railings, benches, newspaper boxes, and other fixtures that may encroach on the sidewalk space. The barrier free measure also takes into account the presence of intersection curb ramps, which are required for a sidewalk to be completely barrier free. The curb ramps must meet the ADA accessibility guidelines for width and slope to qualify as barrier free. This criterion also identifies an otherwise continuous sidewalk system with one short missing segment. A roadway segment that does not score points for pedestrian facility provided cannot score points for this criterion. Sidewalk Width Greater than 5 ft When the sidewalk provided is greater than 5 ft wide, the corridor segment will score points in this category. When the sidewalk is greater than 5 ft but has significant barriers that decrease the useable, clear space to less than 5 ft, the segment will still score points, but will not score for the criterion of a minimum 5 ft wide and barrier free facility. An example of this situation is a sidewalk 10 ft wide in a downtown with outdoor cafes restricting the clearance width to less than 5 ft. This criterion is only applied to the basic pedestrian facility, which cannot score points when the extra width is on a parallel or alternative facility. A roadway segment that does not score points for pedestrian facility provided cannot score points for this criterion. Off Street Parallel Alternative Facility This facility must be located within 0.25 mi of the roadway segment and provide access to the same primary destination points served by the roadway network. This facility is typically located on a separate right of way instead of within the roadway right of way. Examples of such facilities may include, but are not limited to, greenways, rail trails, and pedestrian plazas. The study corridor shall be expected to provide basic pedestrian access; therefore, credit for this criterion is not given to parallel 57

58 roadways with sidewalks, with the exception of access roads within a boulevard roadway design. Conflicts To what degree are conflicts created or alleviated for the pedestrian because of visibility, motor vehicle turning movements, pedestrian exposure times, and pedestrian convenience, which increases risktaking behavior? These criteria measure the degree to which pedestrians and motorists must interact. Less Than 22 Access Points per 1 mi Driveway and side street access points create conflicts for bicyclists and pedestrians. Both national and local crash statistics reveal a high proportion of crashes caused by this type of conflict. At each access point a bicyclist/pedestrian must scan for hazards and be prepared to execute an evasive maneuver. The number of acceptable access points corresponds with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Access Management Class 5 or 6 with restrictive or nonrestrictive medians and posted speeds of 45 mph or less. A Class 5 or 6 prescribes that access points must be at least 245 ft apart. This spacing permits acceptable motor vehicle flows and was assumed to reduce conflicts to an acceptable level. For the described measures, driveways and side streets are evaluated for each side of the street within each corridor segment. If either side of the street exceeds the target of 22 per 1 mi, the entire segment will not score points. Pedestrian Signal Delay of 40 Sec or Less The pedestrian signal delay is calculated for side street crossings along the corridor segment, but not for movements across the major corridor being evaluated. The pedestrian signal delay is an average delay determined to be one half of the maximum pedestrian wait time during peak hour conditions. When signalized intersections occur at intervals greater than 1 mi along the segment, including any signalized intersections at the roadway segment terminuses, the segment is awarded points for this pedestrian signal delay criterion. In this situation there are no side streets to cross or only minor side streets that do not present a significant delay to pedestrians. In determining the 1 mi distancing of signalized intersections measurements shall include any signalized intersections at the terminuses of roadway segments. When signalized intersections occur at distances of 1 mi or less along the segment the majority of these intersections must have pedestrian signal delays of 40 sec or less. Reduced Turn Conflict Implementations Intersection designs must provide properly located crosswalks and sight distances to maximize visibility for pedestrians. Additional measures that reduce conflicts between turning motorists and pedestrians at intersections include restricted right turn onred signage, protected left turn or exclusive pedestrian signal phasing, and gradeseparated crossings. To receive points for this criterion all of the corridor segment s intersections must be free of obstructions to pedestrian sight distances and provide a crosswalk. In addition, the segment must provide either of two specifications: exclusive pedestrian phase, restricted right turn on red, or a grade separated crossing (these features should be provided at every warranted location in the segment, but not less than one installation per segment) or protected left 58

59 turn signal phasing on the majority of signals within the segment. Crossing Widths 60 ft or Less The pedestrian crossing widths are measured for side street crossings along the corridor, but not for movements across the corridor being evaluated. Generally, the throughcrossing distance and other measures, including number of travel lanes and presence of medians, provide sufficient information about the size of the intersection and its effect on pedestrian movement. The pedestrian crossing width is measured in the center of a crosswalk at a signalized intersection only. When pedestrian refuge islands or medians are present within the crosswalk the measurements shall reflect that these facilities decrease pedestrian crossing distances. When such a refuge is present the measurement is taken from the departure curb to the refuge, and then from the refuge to the arrival curb. Each of these measurements is individually evaluated using the criterion of 60 ft or less. When the crossing distance is different on each side of the street the greater of the two measurements is used to determine compliance with this criterion. When signalized intersections occur at intervals greater than 1mi along the segment, the segment is awarded points for this pedestrian crossing width criterion. In this situation there are few side streets to cross, and they do not create significant exposure to traffic. When signalized intersections occur at distances of 1 mi or less along the segment, including any signalized intersections at the corridor segment terminuses, the majority of these intersections must have pedestrian crossing widths of 60 ft or less. Crossing widths greater than 60 ft should be improved to provide pedestrian refuge islands or medians with supplemental pedestrian push buttons. Posted Speed 35 mph or Less High speed traffic greatly decreases the comfort of pedestrians and can be a major deterrent to pedestrian trips. Posted speed limits of 35 mph create operating speeds at the maximum tolerable level of pedestrian comfort. When a posted speed of greater than 35 mph occurs anywhere in the study segment the segment will not score points for this criterion. School zone speeds are not considered in this evaluation. When average actual speeds are available they can be used for a more accurate analysis. Medians Present Points will be received for this criterion when medians are a dominant characteristic within the corridor or when they are present at locations with frequent motor vehicle turning movements or frequent pedestrian midblock crossing movements. Medians in a midblock location reduce the number of motorist left turn conflicts for pedestrians. Pedestrian midblock crossings must provide appropriate protection (i.e., some combination of pedestrian crossing warning signs, flashers, crosswalks, auxiliary pedestrian signals, and push buttons). The medians must be restrictive raised medians with or without turn bays. The medians to be considered in this criterion are midblock medians, not pedestrian refuge islands at intersections, which are evaluated in the crossing width criterion. Amenities in Right of Way Does the segment provide features that increase comfort and convenience for pedestrians using the facility? These features 59

60 must be located primarily within the roadway right of way. Some facilities such as trees or lighting on private property are credited when they are located immediately adjacent to the right of way and are intended to benefit the sidewalk users and be permanent. Buffer not Less Than 1 m (3.3 ft) The buffer is the space between the existing sidewalk and the curb or roadway edge. To score points the 1 m buffer must be maintained throughout the segment, excluding intersections. Roadways that do not provide a pedestrian facility cannot score points for this criterion because there is no facility to buffer. Benches or Pedestrian Scale Lighting Benches or pedestrian scale lighting must be a dominant feature of the segment or at least be provided in locations along the segment adjacent to high pedestrian traffic generators, such as activity centers, office complexes, retirement communities, schools, transit transfer stations, and so forth. Shade Trees Shade trees must be a dominant feature of the segment or at least be provided in locations along the segment adjacent to highpedestrian traffic generators. Motor Vehicle LOS To what degree do motor vehicle volume and congestion affect the comfort and safety level of pedestrians in the segment? Compliance with this criterion is measured the same for pedestrian analysis as for bicycle analysis. As with bicycle LOS this measure does not imply that all roadways with six or more lanes will receive an overall unacceptable pedestrian LOS score. Multilane roadways that provide sidewalks with wide buffers, medians, restricted driveway access, acceptable travel speeds, and other pedestrian compatible criteria will likely score an acceptable overall pedestrian LOS rating. Maintenance Does the corridor suffer from maintenance deficiencies, including cracking, patching, buckling, weathering, holes, tree root intrusion, vegetative encroachment, rough railroad crossing, standing water, and so forth? The pedestrian facility maintenance evaluation parallels the maintenance analysis for bicycle facilities. However, when a pedestrian facility is not provided in the segment points cannot be scored for this maintenance criterion. A grassy swale, travel lane, paved shoulder, or other such facility is not considered an acceptable pedestrian facility, and, therefore, credit cannot be given for the maintenance of such a facility. TDM and Multimodal Support Does the corridor have the available support of TMO services or intermodal links to transit that assist in overcoming nonroadway barriers and affect the decision to walk? As with the bicycle programs the TMO services must target commuters along the corridor and be directed at improving conditions or providing incentives for pedestrians. Intermodal links to transit must include sidewalks on both sides of the street at bus stops locations and at least one location with a bench or shelter along the study segment, but no less than one bench per 1 mi. Pedestrian LOS Ratings Pedestrian LOS ratings are defined by the measures of pedestrian safety features and the level of automobile oriented development 60

61 characteristics along the corridor. The LOS ratings describe the basic level of ADA compliance and the degree to which facility provisions encourage pedestrian use. Pedestrian LOS Ratings Definitions LOS A Scores 21 and below but greater than 17 equal an LOS A rating. These roadways are highly pedestrian oriented and will tend to attract pedestrian trips. The roadways will be characterized by ample sidewalk space, pedestrian friendly intersection designs, lowspeed or low volume motor vehicle traffic, and plentiful amenities (e.g., shade, benches, and so forth). The roadway and sidewalk features will be designed at human scale for maximum pedestrian comfort. Roadways with this level of pedestrian accommodation may be expected in central city, tourist, and college campus locations. Pedestrians can anticipate a low level of interaction with motor vehicles. LOS B Scores 17 and below but greater than 14 equal an LOS B rating. These roadways provide many pedestrian safety and comfort features that can attract pedestrian trips. These roadways will have many of the characteristics of an LOS A pedestrian facility, but there may be somewhat fewer amenities or pedestrian friendly design elements. Pedestrians can anticipate a low to moderate level of interaction with motor vehicles. LOS C Scores 14 and below but greater than 11 equal an LOS C rating. These roadways are adequate for pedestrian use, but may not necessarily attract pedestrian trips. These roadways will provide a standard sidewalk, but will likely have some deficiencies in maintenance or intersection design, may be located on roadways with high speed, highvolume motor vehicle traffic, or may provide a sidewalk on one side of the street only. Pedestrians can anticipate moderate interaction with motor vehicles on these roadways. LOS D Scores 11 and below but greater than 7 equal an LOS D rating. These roadways are adequate for pedestrian use, but will not attract pedestrian trips. These roadways will have more frequent deficiencies in pedestrian safety and comfort features and are more likely to violate ADA requirements for width and clearance. Gaps in the sidewalk system may occur within this roadway corridor. Intersection crossings are likely to be more frequent and more difficult. Pedestrians can anticipate moderate to high levels of interaction with motor vehicles. LOS E Scores 7 and below but greater than 3 equal an LOS E rating. These roadways are inadequate for pedestrian use. These roadways may or may not provide a pedestrian facility. Even where a sidewalk is provided these roadways will not meet ADA requirements and will have frequent deficiencies in sidewalk width, clearance, continuity, and intersection design. Roadways in this category that do not provide a pedestrian facility may be characterized as urban fringe, rural section roadways with moderate motor vehicle traffic. Pedestrians can anticipate a high level of interaction with motor vehicles. LOS F Scores of 3 and below equal an LOS F rating. These roadways are inadequate for pedestrian use. These roadways do not provide any continuous pedestrian facilities and are characterized by high levels of motorvehicle use and automobile oriented development. These roadways are designed primarily for high volume motor vehicle traffic with frequent turning conflicts and high speeds. 61

62 Appendix C: Detailed PPM Results for Woodland Case Study Area by Segment California St. from Cross St. to W. Lincoln Ave. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B California St. from W. Main St. to W. Lincoln Ave. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B 62

63 California St. from W. Court St. to W. Main St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B W. Lincoln Ave. from California St. to West St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B 63

64 W. Lincoln Ave. from West St. to Grand Ave. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B W. Lincoln Ave. from Grand Ave. to Academy Ln./McKinley Ave. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B 64

65 W. Lincoln Ave. from Academy Ln./McKinley to Cleveland St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B W. Main St. from California St. to West St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 3 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS A 65

66 Main St. from West St. to Grand Ave. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 3 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS A Main St. from Grand Ave. to Academy Ln./McKinley Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 3 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS A 66

67 Main St. from Academy Ln./McKinley Ave. to Cleveland St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 3 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS A W. Court St. from California St. to West St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B 67

68 Court St. from West St. to Cleveland St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B Memorial Lane from West St. to Grand Ave. (alley) Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 0 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 0 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 0 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS E 68

69 Grand Ave. from Lincoln Ave. to Main St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B Academy Ln. from terminus to Lincoln Ave. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 0 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 0 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 0 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS E 69

70 Academy Ln./McKinley Ave. from Lincoln Ave. to Oak Ave. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B Jefferson St. from West St. to McKinley Ave. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B 70

71 Saunders Wy. from Lincoln Ave. to Oak Ave. (alley) Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 0 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 0 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 0 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS E Cleveland St. from Court St. to Main St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B 71

72 Cleveland St. from Main St. to Lincoln Ave. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B Cleveland St. from Lincoln Ave. to Oak Ave. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B 72

73 Appendix D: Detailed MMLOS Results for Woodland Case Study Area by Segment 2010 HCM Multimodal LOS Ped LOS LOS LOS # Pseg A 1.67 MMLOS Range Check Pint C 2.93 Mode LOS LOS # v/c ADT 4,871 (>=0 vpd) OK Yes Model 1 C 3.23 Auto C % HV 5% (0-100%) OK No Model 2 C 3.35 Transit F 6.48 Buses/hr 0 (>=0 bph) OK Yes RCDF 1 A 1.16 Bicycle F 4.40 Peds/hr 90 (>=0 pph) OK If Very High RCDF 2 A 1.14 Pedestrian C 3.23 Intersection signal ROW 69 ft Street Cross-Section Range Checks Sidewalk Buffer Parking Bike Ln Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Median Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Bike Ln Parking Buffer Sidewalk OK (all entries in feet, enter zero for non-existant lanes) Location: California St. from W. Main St. to W. Lincoln Ave. Important? Key Parameters Street : California St. Yes Signal Spacing: 536 (200-10,560 ft.) OK From: W. Main St. slight Progression Quality: 3 (1=poor, 6=excellent) OK To: W. Lincoln Ave. slight Speed Limit 25 (15-70 mph) OK no Bus Stops w. Shelter: 0% (0-100%) OK no Pavement Quality: 4 (1=poor, 5=excellent) OK Additional Parameters Draft, for internal evaluation only Spreadsheet by: R. Dowling, Dowling Associates, Inc., July 5, 2007, Updated 02/12/08. Auto LOS Inputs Important? Pedestrian LOS Inputs Important? Transit LOS Inputs Important? Bicycle LOS Inputs Important? Peaking Factor (k) 0.09 Yes % Parking Occ. 50% Yes % On Time 86% No Unsig Conflicts/Mile 20 No Directional Factor (d) 0.55 Yes Barrier (Yes/No) yes Yes % Stops w. Benches 0% No Peak Hr. Fac. (PHF) 0.80 Yes RTOR+Perm LT (vph) 51 slight Load Factor (p/seat) 0.50 No Adj. Sat Flow (vphgl) 1800 Yes X-Street Vol. (vph) 590 Yes CBD (Yes/No) Yes No Through g/c 0.50 slight X-Street Speed (mph) 35 Yes Bus Stops/segment 0.00 No Cycle Length (sec) 60 slight X-Street Lanes (#) 4 slight Delay/Bus Stop (sec) 20 No Right Turn Islands (#) 0 slight 0.50 Potential 73

74 2010 HCM Multimodal LOS Ped LOS LOS LOS # Pseg A 1.99 MMLOS Range Check Pint B 2.60 Mode LOS LOS # v/c ADT 5,819 (>=0 vpd) OK Yes Model 1 C 3.37 Auto D % HV 5% (0-100%) OK No Model 2 D 3.57 Transit F 6.51 Buses/hr 0 (>=0 bph) OK Yes RCDF 1 A 1.20 Bicycle D 3.36 Peds/hr 90 (>=0 pph) OK If Very High RCDF 2 A 1.20 Pedestrian C 3.37 Intersection signal ROW 69 ft Street Cross-Section Range Checks Sidewalk Buffer Parking Bike Ln Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Median Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Bike Ln Parking Buffer Sidewalk OK (all entries in feet, enter zero for non-existant lanes) Location: California St. from W. Court St. to W. Main St. Important? Key Parameters Street : California St. Yes Signal Spacing: 464 (200-10,560 ft.) OK From: W. Court St. slight Progression Quality: 3 (1=poor, 6=excellent) OK To: W. Main St. slight Speed Limit 25 (15-70 mph) OK no Bus Stops w. Shelter: 0% (0-100%) OK no Pavement Quality: 4 (1=poor, 5=excellent) OK Additional Parameters Draft, for internal evaluation only Spreadsheet by: R. Dowling, Dowling Associates, Inc., July 5, 2007, Updated 02/12/08. Auto LOS Inputs Important? Pedestrian LOS Inputs Important? Transit LOS Inputs Important? Bicycle LOS Inputs Important? Peaking Factor (k) 0.09 Yes % Parking Occ. 0% Yes % On Time 86% No Unsig Conflicts/Mile 23 No Directional Factor (d) 0.55 Yes Barrier (Yes/No) yes Yes % Stops w. Benches 0% No Peak Hr. Fac. (PHF) 0.80 Yes RTOR+Perm LT (vph) 61 slight Load Factor (p/seat) 0.50 No Adj. Sat Flow (vphgl) 1800 Yes X-Street Vol. (vph) 439 Yes CBD (Yes/No) Yes No Through g/c 0.50 slight X-Street Speed (mph) 30 Yes Bus Stops/segment 0.00 No Cycle Length (sec) 60 slight X-Street Lanes (#) 2 slight Delay/Bus Stop (sec) 20 No Right Turn Islands (#) 0 slight 0.50 Potential 74

75 2010 HCM Multimodal LOS Ped LOS LOS LOS # Pseg A 1.70 MMLOS Range Check Pint B 2.22 Mode LOS LOS # v/c ADT 4,736 (>=0 vpd) OK Yes Model 1 C 2.76 Auto D % HV 5% (0-100%) OK No Model 2 C 2.83 Transit F 6.41 Buses/hr 0 (>=0 bph) OK Yes RCDF 1 A 1.05 Bicycle E 3.79 Peds/hr 90 (>=0 pph) OK If Very High RCDF 2 A 1.04 Pedestrian C 2.76 Intersection signal ROW 60 ft Street Cross-Section Range Checks Sidewalk Buffer Parking Bike Ln Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Median Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Bike Ln Parking Buffer Sidewalk OK (all entries in feet, enter zero for non-existant lanes) Location: W. Lincoln Ave. from West St. to Grand Ave. Important? Key Parameters Street : W. Lincoln Ave. Yes Signal Spacing: 438 (200-10,560 ft.) OK From: West St. slight Progression Quality: 3 (1=poor, 6=excellent) OK To: Grand Ave. slight Speed Limit 25 (15-70 mph) OK no Bus Stops w. Shelter: 0% (0-100%) OK no Pavement Quality: 4 (1=poor, 5=excellent) OK Additional Parameters Draft, for internal evaluation only Spreadsheet by: R. Dowling, Dowling Associates, Inc., July 5, 2007, Updated 02/12/08. Auto LOS Inputs Important? Pedestrian LOS Inputs Important? Transit LOS Inputs Important? Bicycle LOS Inputs Important? Peaking Factor (k) 0.09 Yes % Parking Occ. 50% Yes % On Time 86% No Unsig Conflicts/Mile 5No Directional Factor (d) 0.55 Yes Barrier (Yes/No) yes Yes % Stops w. Benches 0% No Peak Hr. Fac. (PHF) 0.80 Yes RTOR+Perm LT (vph) 39 slight Load Factor (p/seat) 0.50 No Adj. Sat Flow (vphgl) 1800 Yes X-Street Vol. (vph) 188 Yes CBD (Yes/No) No No Through g/c 0.50 slight X-Street Speed (mph) 25 Yes Bus Stops/segment 0.00 No Cycle Length (sec) 60 slight X-Street Lanes (#) 2 slight Delay/Bus Stop (sec) 20 No Right Turn Islands (#) 0 slight 0.50 Potential 75

76 2010 HCM Multimodal LOS Ped LOS LOS LOS # Pseg C 3.02 MMLOS Range Check Pint B 2.37 Mode LOS LOS # v/c ADT 14,171 (>=0 vpd) OK Yes Model 1 D 3.71 Auto C % HV 5% (0-100%) OK No Model 2 D 4.04 Transit F 6.56 Buses/hr 0 (>=0 bph) OK Yes RCDF 1 A 1.20 Bicycle F 5.05 Peds/hr 150 (>=0 pph) OK If Very High RCDF 2 A 1.20 Pedestrian D 3.71 Intersection signal ROW 74 ft Street Cross-Section Range Checks Sidewalk Buffer Parking Bike Ln Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Median Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Bike Ln Parking Buffer Sidewalk OK (all entries in feet, enter zero for non-existant lanes) Location: W. Main St. from California St. to West St. Important? Key Parameters Street : W. Main St. Yes Signal Spacing: 1,318 (200-10,560 ft.) OK From: California St. slight Progression Quality: 3 (1=poor, 6=excellent) OK To: West St. slight Speed Limit 35 (15-70 mph) OK no Bus Stops w. Shelter: 0% (0-100%) OK no Pavement Quality: 4 (1=poor, 5=excellent) OK Additional Parameters Draft, for internal evaluation only Spreadsheet by: R. Dowling, Dowling Associates, Inc., July 5, 2007, Updated 02/12/08. Auto LOS Inputs Important? Pedestrian LOS Inputs Important? Transit LOS Inputs Important? Bicycle LOS Inputs Important? Peaking Factor (k) 0.09 Yes % Parking Occ. 0% Yes % On Time 86% No Unsig Conflicts/Mile 35 No Directional Factor (d) 0.55 Yes Barrier (Yes/No) no Yes % Stops w. Benches 0% No Peak Hr. Fac. (PHF) 0.80 Yes RTOR+Perm LT (vph) 118 slight Load Factor (p/seat) 0.50 No Adj. Sat Flow (vphgl) 1800 Yes X-Street Vol. (vph) 203 Yes CBD (Yes/No) Yes No Through g/c 0.50 slight X-Street Speed (mph) 25 Yes Bus Stops/segment 0.00 No Cycle Length (sec) 60 slight X-Street Lanes (#) 2 slight Delay/Bus Stop (sec) 20 No Right Turn Islands (#) 0 slight 0.50 Potential 76

77 2010 HCM Multimodal LOS Ped LOS LOS LOS # Pseg B 2.72 MMLOS Range Check Pint B 2.35 Mode LOS LOS # v/c ADT 13,230 (>=0 vpd) OK Yes Model 1 D 3.58 Auto D % HV 5% (0-100%) OK No Model 2 D 3.87 Transit F 6.54 Buses/hr 0 (>=0 bph) OK Yes RCDF 1 A 1.20 Bicycle F 4.67 Peds/hr 150 (>=0 pph) OK If Very High RCDF 2 A 1.20 Pedestrian D 3.58 Intersection signal ROW 74 ft Street Cross-Section Range Checks Sidewalk Buffer Parking Bike Ln Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Median Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Bike Ln Parking Buffer Sidewalk OK (all entries in feet, enter zero for non-existant lanes) Location: Main St. from West St. to Grand Ave. Important? Key Parameters Street : Main St. Yes Signal Spacing: 441 (200-10,560 ft.) OK From: West St. slight Progression Quality: 3 (1=poor, 6=excellent) OK To: Grand Ave. slight Speed Limit 25 (15-70 mph) OK no Bus Stops w. Shelter: 0% (0-100%) OK no Pavement Quality: 4 (1=poor, 5=excellent) OK Additional Parameters Draft, for internal evaluation only Spreadsheet by: R. Dowling, Dowling Associates, Inc., July 5, 2007, Updated 02/12/08. Auto LOS Inputs Important? Pedestrian LOS Inputs Important? Transit LOS Inputs Important? Bicycle LOS Inputs Important? Peaking Factor (k) 0.09 Yes % Parking Occ. 0% Yes % On Time 86% No Unsig Conflicts/Mile 30 No Directional Factor (d) 0.55 Yes Barrier (Yes/No) no Yes % Stops w. Benches 0% No Peak Hr. Fac. (PHF) 0.80 Yes RTOR+Perm LT (vph) 110 slight Load Factor (p/seat) 0.50 No Adj. Sat Flow (vphgl) 1800 Yes X-Street Vol. (vph) 188 Yes CBD (Yes/No) Yes No Through g/c 0.50 slight X-Street Speed (mph) 25 Yes Bus Stops/segment 0.00 No Cycle Length (sec) 60 slight X-Street Lanes (#) 2 slight Delay/Bus Stop (sec) 20 No Right Turn Islands (#) 0 slight 0.50 Potential 77

78 2010 HCM Multimodal LOS Ped LOS LOS LOS # Pseg B 2.09 MMLOS Range Check Pint B 2.36 Mode LOS LOS # v/c ADT 10,539 (>=0 vpd) OK Yes Model 1 C 3.35 Auto C % HV 5% (0-100%) OK No Model 2 D 3.54 Transit F 6.50 Buses/hr 0 (>=0 bph) OK Yes RCDF 1 A 1.20 Bicycle E 4.02 Peds/hr 120 (>=0 pph) OK If Very High RCDF 2 A 1.20 Pedestrian C 3.35 Intersection signal ROW 84 ft Street Cross-Section Range Checks Sidewalk Buffer Parking Bike Ln Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Median Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Bike Ln Parking Buffer Sidewalk OK (all entries in feet, enter zero for non-existant lanes) Location: W. Court St. from California St. to West St. Important? Key Parameters Street : W. Court St. Yes Signal Spacing: 1,317 (200-10,560 ft.) OK From: California St. slight Progression Quality: 3 (1=poor, 6=excellent) OK To: West St. slight Speed Limit 30 (15-70 mph) OK no Bus Stops w. Shelter: 0% (0-100%) OK no Pavement Quality: 4 (1=poor, 5=excellent) OK Additional Parameters Draft, for internal evaluation only Spreadsheet by: R. Dowling, Dowling Associates, Inc., July 5, 2007, Updated 02/12/08. Auto LOS Inputs Important? Pedestrian LOS Inputs Important? Transit LOS Inputs Important? Bicycle LOS Inputs Important? Peaking Factor (k) 0.09 Yes % Parking Occ. 0% Yes % On Time 86% No Unsig Conflicts/Mile 28 No Directional Factor (d) 0.55 Yes Barrier (Yes/No) yes Yes % Stops w. Benches 0% No Peak Hr. Fac. (PHF) 0.80 Yes RTOR+Perm LT (vph) 88 slight Load Factor (p/seat) 0.50 No Adj. Sat Flow (vphgl) 1800 Yes X-Street Vol. (vph) 243 Yes CBD (Yes/No) Yes No Through g/c 0.50 slight X-Street Speed (mph) 25 Yes Bus Stops/segment 0.00 No Cycle Length (sec) 60 slight X-Street Lanes (#) 2 slight Delay/Bus Stop (sec) 20 No Right Turn Islands (#) 0 slight 0.50 Potential 78

79 2010 HCM Multimodal LOS Ped LOS LOS LOS # Pseg B 2.28 MMLOS Range Check Pint B 2.30 Mode LOS LOS # v/c ADT 10,170 (>=0 vpd) OK Yes Model 1 C 3.40 Auto C % HV 5% (0-100%) OK No Model 2 D 3.62 Transit C 2.95 Buses/hr 4 (>=0 bph) OK Yes RCDF 1 A 1.20 Bicycle F 4.27 Peds/hr 120 (>=0 pph) OK If Very High RCDF 2 A 1.20 Pedestrian C 3.40 Intersection signal ROW 80 ft Street Cross-Section Range Checks Sidewalk Buffer Parking Bike Ln Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Median Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Bike Ln Parking Buffer Sidewalk OK (all entries in feet, enter zero for non-existant lanes) Location: Court St. from West St. to Cleveland St. Important? Key Parameters Street : Court St. Yes Signal Spacing: 1,322 (200-10,560 ft.) OK From: West St. slight Progression Quality: 3 (1=poor, 6=excellent) OK To: Cleveland St. slight Speed Limit 25 (15-70 mph) OK no Bus Stops w. Shelter: 0% (0-100%) OK no Pavement Quality: 4 (1=poor, 5=excellent) OK Additional Parameters Draft, for internal evaluation only Spreadsheet by: R. Dowling, Dowling Associates, Inc., July 5, 2007, Updated 02/12/08. Auto LOS Inputs Important? Pedestrian LOS Inputs Important? Transit LOS Inputs Important? Bicycle LOS Inputs Important? Peaking Factor (k) 0.09 Yes % Parking Occ. 50% Yes % On Time 86% No Unsig Conflicts/Mile 15 No Directional Factor (d) 0.55 Yes Barrier (Yes/No) yes Yes % Stops w. Benches 100% No Peak Hr. Fac. (PHF) 0.80 Yes RTOR+Perm LT (vph) 85 slight Load Factor (p/seat) 0.50 No Adj. Sat Flow (vphgl) 1800 Yes X-Street Vol. (vph) 188 Yes CBD (Yes/No) Yes No Through g/c 0.50 slight X-Street Speed (mph) 25 Yes Bus Stops/segment 2.00 No Cycle Length (sec) 60 slight X-Street Lanes (#) 2 slight Delay/Bus Stop (sec) 20 No Right Turn Islands (#) 0 slight 0.50 Potential 79

80 2010 HCM Multimodal LOS Ped LOS LOS LOS # Pseg A 1.96 MMLOS Range Check Pint B 2.61 Mode LOS LOS # v/c ADT 4,500 (>=0 vpd) OK Yes Model 1 B 2.50 Auto C % HV 5% (0-100%) OK No Model 2 B 2.58 Transit F 6.38 Buses/hr 0 (>=0 bph) OK Yes RCDF 1 A 0.89 Bicycle E 4.14 Peds/hr 60 (>=0 pph) OK If Very High RCDF 2 A 0.87 Pedestrian B 2.50 Intersection signal ROW 56 ft Street Cross-Section Range Checks Sidewalk Buffer Parking Bike Ln Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Median Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Trav. Lane Bike Ln Parking Buffer Sidewalk OK (all entries in feet, enter zero for non-existant lanes) Location: Cleveland St. from Main St. to Lincoln Ave. Important? Key Parameters Street : Cleveland St. Yes Signal Spacing: 666 (200-10,560 ft.) OK From: Main St. slight Progression Quality: 3 (1=poor, 6=excellent) OK To: Lincoln Ave. slight Speed Limit 25 (15-70 mph) OK no Bus Stops w. Shelter: 0% (0-100%) OK no Pavement Quality: 4 (1=poor, 5=excellent) OK Additional Parameters Draft, for internal evaluation only Spreadsheet by: R. Dowling, Dowling Associates, Inc., July 5, 2007, Updated 02/12/08. Auto LOS Inputs Important? Pedestrian LOS Inputs Important? Transit LOS Inputs Important? Bicycle LOS Inputs Important? Peaking Factor (k) 0.09 Yes % Parking Occ. 50% Yes % On Time 86% No Unsig Conflicts/Mile 13 No Directional Factor (d) 0.55 Yes Barrier (Yes/No) yes Yes % Stops w. Benches 0% No Peak Hr. Fac. (PHF) 0.80 Yes RTOR+Perm LT (vph) 38 slight Load Factor (p/seat) 0.50 No Adj. Sat Flow (vphgl) 1800 Yes X-Street Vol. (vph) 531 Yes CBD (Yes/No) No No Through g/c 0.50 slight X-Street Speed (mph) 25 Yes Bus Stops/segment 0.00 No Cycle Length (sec) 60 slight X-Street Lanes (#) 4 slight Delay/Bus Stop (sec) 20 No Right Turn Islands (#) 0 slight 0.50 Potential 80

81 Appendix E: Detailed PPM Results for Roseville Case Study Area by Segment 2nd St. from B St. to Riverside Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B B St. from 2nd St. to 3rd St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS C 81

82 3rd St. from B St. to Riverside Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS C B St. from 3rd St. to 4th St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS C 82

83 4th St. from B St. to Riverside Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B Riverside from 4th St. to Cherry Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 0 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B 83

84 Riverside from Cherry to 3rd St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 3 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 0 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B Riverside from 3rd St. to Bonita Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 3 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 0 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS A 84

85 Riverside from Bonita to 2nd St. Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 3 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 0 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B Riverside from 2nd St. to Douglas Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 3 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 0 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 1 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B 85

86 Douglas from Riverside to Clinton Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 2 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 0 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B Clinton from Douglas to Bonita Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS C 86

87 Bonita from Clinton to Riverside Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 0 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 0 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 0 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL 4 21 Pedestrian LOS E Clinton from Bonita to Cherry Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS C 87

88 Cherry from Riverside to Clinton Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 3 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 0 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS B Cherry from Clinton to Earl Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 0 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS C 88

89 Earl from Cherry to Bonita Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS C Bonita from Clinton to Earl Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 0 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS C 89

90 Earl from Bonita to Douglas Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 6 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 2 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 1 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL Pedestrian LOS C Douglas from Clinton to Earl Points Pedestrian LOS Inputs Total out of Presence and condition of pedestrian facility/sidewalk 0 6 Sidewalk width and treatments 0 3 Auto LOS 2 2 Maintenance issues 0 2 < 22 driveways and side streets per mile 1 1 Presence of buffer not less than 3.5 ft wide 0 1 Presence of median 0 1 Presence of off street facility 0 1 TDM 0 1 Ped signal delay 40 sec. or less Posted speed <=35 mph Presence of benches or lighting Presence of shade trees Reduced turn conflict implementation Road width 60 ft or less TOTAL 5 21 Pedestrian LOS E 90

91 Appendix F: Walkscore.com Methodology 91

92 92

93 93

94 94

95 95

96 96

97 97

98 98