Chapel Hill Town Center Alternative Transportation Level of Service
Creators: name: Day, Matthew
Publisher: name: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University Libraries
Year: 2004

description: There are two main objectives addressed in this paper. The first objective is to show how various level of service models that have been developed for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities compare with each other. The second is to use these level of service models to determine the level of service provided for alternative transportation modes in the Chapel Hill Town Center and use the results to show locations in need of facility or service improvements. Level of service (LOS) is a concept used to illustrate the service being provided by a given transportation facility. The service can be graded on a letter grade scale from A to F (A being best and F being worst). Many different methods and approaches to level of service have been discussed in scholarly literature. Traditionally, level of service has been measured as a function of the volume of users on a facility and the capacity of the facility -- this concept is usually applied to highways, but capacity-based methods of measuring level of service have been developed for many modes of transportation, including the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes. This capacity-based approach to level of service has come under criticism lately for not adequately measuring the quality of service being provided and for focusing on mobility instead of accessibility. New level of service measures have been developed that incorporate physical characteristics of destinations and the environment into pedestrian and bicycle level of service and incorporate transit service quality measures into transit level of service. Several of these models are examined in this paper, and applied to a portion of Downtown Chapel Hill in order to find similarities and differences between the models, potential flaws in their application, and to begin looking for ways to integrate the models. There are five models used in this analysis. For pedestrian facilities, the Pedestrian Level Of Service (PLOS) model and Fruin method are used to determine level of service. The PLOS method was developed by Sprinkle Consulting and uses a regression model based on certain sidewalk, roadway, and environmental characteristics to determine level of service. The Fruin method comes from the Highway Capacity Manual and is based on a volume-to-capacity ratio for a sidewalk facility. The Bicycle Level Of Service (BLOS) model and Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) model are used to measure bicycle level of service. The BLOS model was developed by Sprinkle (as a companion to the PLOS model discussed above); it uses a regression formula based on roadway and environmental characteristics to determine level of service. The BCI method was developed by the Federal Highway Administration as a tool to determine the compatibility of motor vehicle and bicycle traffic on a given roadway -- in doing so, the BCI also provides a measure of the quality of bicycle service along a given road segment (or level of service). Transit Level Of Service (TLOS), a model developed by the Florida Department of Transportation to measure transit level of service based on service frequency and hours of transit service, is used to measure transit level of service. The models discussed above are applied to a study area in the Town Center area of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In general, the models produced a varied picture of the quality of transportation services in this study area. The results of the Fruin method showed level of service "A" throughout the study area, while the PLOS model found some areas with adequate pedestrian facilities and others with failing level of service grades. The BLOS and BCI results showed many of the same deficient facilities in terms of bicycle accommodation, but also contained important differences. The BCI results appeared to be biased against narrow lowvolume roads, so a new grading scale was developed to offset this effect. The TLOS analysis was done looking at service frequency in isolation and looking at service frequency and hours of service together. The results of these analyses were similar to each other, and highlighted the same problem areas. In general, except for the Fruin method, which produced very skewed results, the various models produced results that seemed reasonable in isolation and in comparison with each other. Many road segments in the Town Center study area are found to be deficient in the results of these models. Many different mitigation strategies may be appropriately applied to improve these segments. Some of the recommended mitigation measures include the provision of new sidewalks and bicycle lanes, the addition of transit service, the retiming of transit service, and the addition or removal of on-street parking. The mitigation strategies presented in this paper are not prioritized, but it is recommended that level of service raw scores could be used to determine which improvements receive priority in implementation. The mitigation strategies presented are also only given as a suggested guideline -- any actual improvements would need to be determined by the appropriate town agencies and officials. In general, the analysis found the following areas to be most deficient in terms of current service: Pedestrian: local side streets; areas near the UNC campus; Rosemary Street; and Hillsborough Street Bicycle: areas near the UNC campus (especially Columbia Street); portions of Franklin, Cameron, and Rosemary Streets; and local side streets (especially narrow streets with on-street parking) Transit: the Rosemary Street and Cameron Avenue corridors and West Franklin Street (especially westbound)