LEVEL OF SERVICE

LEVEL OF SERVICE

Level of service (LOS) measures the

ALTERNATE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

delay experienced by motorists at an intersection (or a specific lane at an

Cities are encouraged to use and adopt

a variety of tools to complement or

Vehicles

intersection) according to a scale of

A (least delay) through F (most delay). • LOS

replace LOS as a performance measure.

• Travel Time LOS is used to communicate the

Below are some of the tools that cities

• Corridor Impact Analysis potential impact a new development

are already using to assess conditions

• Safety: Crash records, injuries, or street reconfiguration may have at

on their streets.

and fatalities

a particular intersection. Based on LOS

Pedestrians

data, a project can be assessed for

• Safety: Rate of crashes, injuries,

Transit

the severity of anticipated congestion

• On-time performance over a 20–30 year timeframe of the

and fatalities (typically based on

police records)

• Average speed

• Farebox recovery ratio development.

• Pedestrian LOS (Highway Capacity

Manual)

• Ridership per revenue hour

• Operating cost per hour LOS measures impacts, but

• Public Life Surveys

• WalkScore (walkability ratings)

inadequately captures a project’s

• Pedestrian Environmental

Freight

potential benefits. As a metric, it is Quality Index (PEQI)

• Freight delivered by hour mono-modal, measuring streets

• Minimal delay at crossings

• Time spent loading/unloading not by their economic and social vibrancy, but by their ability to

• Foot-traffic volume

Bicyclists

Emergency Vehicles

process motor vehicles.

• Safety: Crash records, injuries,

• Response time

and fatalities

LOS is one of many tools that may

• Bicycle LOS (Highway Capacity

Sustainability

• LEED Neighborhood Development conditions in cities, but it should never

be employed to assess traffic

Manual) • Travel Time and Delay

• GreenRoads strive to integrate varied and holistic

• Bicycle Environmental

• STARS

be the only tool used. Cities should

Quality index

• Bicycle counts

performance measures into their Multi-Modal development review process, includ-

• Multi-Modal LOS ing measures that frame potential • Retail revenues and business growth benefits, as well as those that

capture risk.

For a list of performance measures, see References, p. 184.

CASE STUDIES Many communities have chosen to

Chicago: Reduce Reliance on LOS

realign their performance measures with broader aims, including economic

Chicago’s Complete Streets Manual

growth, public health, sustainability,

(2013) moves away from the LOS para-

and mode shift.

digm. The manual recommends using no minimum vehicle LOS and prioritizes

Level of Service: A

Washington, D.C.: Adopt Comprehen-

pedestrian LOS, requiring no pedestrian sive Performance Measures 2 delays in excess of 60 seconds.

As both a project evaluation and bench-

San Francisco: Phase Out LOS

marking tool, performance measures

San Francisco adopted its Transportation

beyond LOS are a centerpiece of the

Sustainability Program in 2002. This District’s Great Streets program. The city policy mandates the gradual elimination

tracks revitalization on under-invested

of LOS, streamlines the project develop-

corridors based on five main goals:

ment review process, and replaces the

economic health, safe and multi-modal

Transportation Development Impact

transportation, community building, 1 historical assets, and sustainable design. Fee levied against developers with the Transportation Sustainability Fee (TSF). Level of Service: F

The TSF offsets or reduces auto trips generated by a project with a fee used to support transit, pedestrian, and bicycle projects. 3

Functional Functional classification is an ordering system that

defines “the part that any particular road or street should

Classification play in serving the flow of trips through a highway

network.” Functional classification categorizes streets according to their ability to 1) move traffic and 2) provide access to adjacent properties. Street types under functional classification include “local streets,” medium- sized “collectors,” and highway-type “arterials.”

Many city streets predated the advent of the Federal Highway System of functional classification, making the system unsuitable for the diversity of land uses and travel characteristics throughout an urban area. While certain types of classification make streets eligible for highway aid, once a street is given a class, federal design standards that do not consider local context may be assigned to that street, and any variation requires a design exception.

D E SI G N CO N T R O LS

DISCUSSION

City streets are complex places where functional classification schemes— whether from a state agency or from the Federal Highway Administration— are generally too limiting as a basis for design capable of achieving social and economic goals for quality of life, mobility, and urban vitality. Such state or federal standards must be adapted to the urban environment before adoption so that city leaders maintain their flexibility to make streets a supportive element of a socially and economically thriving public realm.

Many cities use some form of street classification to provide stakeholders and developers with a set of standard street cross-sections to guide new development and rehabilitation. These set requirements for the construction of the street as well as dimensions for sidewalks, curbs, and setbacks. Federally defined functional classes, which are generally applied to National Highway System streets, have associated design guidelines used by some cities as well.

Even when they are completely updated, classification schemes, in and of themselves, are rarely adequate as a design tool for the diversity of situations to be encountered on city streets. Each project should also be approached with sound case-by- case professional judgment. In certain cases, cities may choose to alter a street’s classification level to better align with a community’s vision for its future.

Updated street design standards should be consistent with citywide goals for safety, economic growth, development, and urban design. These standards should attempt to capture the unique local relationship between the built realm and the surrounding streetscape, encapsulating the varying scales at which motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians interact with individual corridors as well as the overall street network. This entails requiring sidewalks on urban arterials, enhancing the quality of street construction for special districts, and controlling access points to the property to reduce conflicts between driveway traffic and pedestrians.

Classification schemes, in and of themselves, are rarely adequate as

a design tool for the diversity of situations to be encountered on city streets.

FU N C T I O N A L CL A S SIFI C AT I O N

Many cities have developed street

classification systems specific to

Avenue

Commercial

Country Route

their local needs. These classifica tion

Boulevard

Industrial

State Route

systems generally combine

2–3 variables that guide decision Residential making:

Sanitation Route

· Street type and usage

Collector

Town

Snow Route

Local

Village

Truck Route

· Urban design context and built environment

· Overlays, including modal

prior ities, special uses, and

historic designations

Bicycle Priority

Major

Corridor

Driving Priority

Multi-Way

District

Pedestrian Priority

Thoroughfare

Downtown

Transit Priority

Home Zone

General

Marketplace

Pedestrian District

Multi-modal

Mixed-Use

Transit-Oriented

Parkway

Neighborhood

Paseo

Park

Pedestrian

Urban

Shared

Workplace

Slow

D E SI G N CO N T R O LS