Application of New Pedestrian Level of Service Measures - sacog

Application of New 

Pedestrian Level of 

Service Measures 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments 

June 2011 

1

Application of New Pedestrian Level of Service Measures 

SACOG 

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 12 

5. Case Study Area Selection 16 

6. Results of Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis 20 

7. Conclusions 29 

8. Next Steps 32 

9. Potential Variables for Regional Collection 33 

10. 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 

Issue Date: June 2011 

2


SACOG 

Appendices 

A. MMLOS Methodology………………………………………………………….…...…....... 35 

B. PPM Methodology…………………………………………………………………………….... 57 

C. Detailed PPM Results for Woodland Case Study Area ………………….... 62 

D. Detailed MMLOS Results for Woodland Case Study Area …………….... 73 

E. Detailed PPM Results for Roseville Case Study Area………………………… 81 

F. Walkscore.com Methodology……………………………………………………..…..... 91 


3


SACOG 

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 SACOG 

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 

SACOG’s analysis. 

This work will support several pedestrian planning initiatives. For SACOG, 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 SACOG’s I‐PLACE 3 S software, and for SACOG’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


SACOG 

2. Terminology 

Before discussing the models SACOG 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


SACOG 

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

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 SACOG’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 SACOG’s I‐PLACE 3 S software and SACOG’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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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 


Road 

Safety 

Audit 

Guidelines 

& Prompt 

Lists 

(e) Walk 

Score 

Methodology 

White Paper 


Environmental 

Quality Index 

(PEQI) 

(g) 


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 


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


SACOG 

Factors Measured 

(a) UC 

Berkeley‐ 

Technical 

Guide for 


Safety 

Assessments 

(b) 

WALKSac 

School 

Audit 

(c ) PA 

DOT 

Walkability 

Checklist 

(d) FHWA 


Road 

Safety 

Audit 

Guidelines 

& Prompt 

Lists 

(e) Walk 

Score 

Methodology 

White Paper 


Environmental 

Quality Index 

(PEQI) 

(g) 


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 


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


SACOG 

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, 

SACOG 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, SACOG 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, SACOG 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 + 0.220*Intersection Score + 1.606) * (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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

Exhibit H: Map of Woodland, CA Case Study Area 

6. 

7. [INSERT] 


17


SACOG 

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, SACOG 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


SACOG 

Exhibit J: Map of Roseville, CA Case Study Area 

8. 


19


SACOG 

6. Results of Pedestrian Level of 

Service Analysis 

Two pedestrian LOS methods were applied in two case study areas within the SACOG 

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 SACOG region. Although significant help was 

provided by staff at both agencies in assembling data, the data and results presented below 

are SACOG’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. 

Issue Date: June 2011


SACOG 

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. 16.5 B 3.23 C 

California St. from W. Court St. to W. Main St. 16.5 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. 16.5 B ‐‐ ‐‐ 

W. Lincoln Ave. from Academy Ln./McKinley to Cleveland St. 16 B ‐‐ ‐‐ 

W. Main St. from California St. to West St. 17.5 A 3.71 D 

Main St. from West St. to Grand Ave. 17.5 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. 17.5 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. 16.5 B ‐‐ ‐‐ 

Jefferson St. from West St. to McKinley Ave. 16.5 B ‐‐ ‐‐ 

Saunders Wy. from Lincoln Ave. to Oak Ave. (alley) 5.5 E ‐‐ ‐‐ 

Cleveland St. from Court St. to Main St. 16.5 B ‐‐ ‐‐ 

Cleveland St. from Main St. to Lincoln Ave. 16.5 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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

Exhibit L: Woodland Case Study PPM LOS Results Map 


24


SACOG 

Exhibit M: Woodland Case Study MMLOS Results Map 


25


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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. 16.5 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


SACOG 

Exhibit O. Roseville Case Study PPM LOS Results Map 


28


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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 SACOG Analysis and Use 

SACOG hopes to incorporate some of the major determinants of pedestrian LOS into its 

modeling software for use in future planning analyses. 


31


SACOG 

8. Next Steps 

This research project provided a good start to several efforts at SACOG: 

 

 

 

 

SACOG hopes to incorporate some of the major determinants of pedestrian LOS into 

its modeling software. 

SACOG 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 SACOG 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


SACOG 

9. Potential Variables for Regional 

Collection 

In order to incorporate measures of pedestrian LOS into future SACOG 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 SACOG 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 SACOG 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. SACOG 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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

10. Appendices 

Appendix A: MMLOS Methodology 


35


SACOG 


36


SACOG 


37


SACOG 


38


SACOG 


39


SACOG 


40


SACOG 


41


SACOG 


42


SACOG 


43


SACOG 


44


SACOG 


45


SACOG 


46


SACOG 


47


SACOG 


48


SACOG 


49


SACOG 


50


SACOG 


51


SACOG 


52


SACOG 


53


SACOG 


54


SACOG 


55


SACOG 


56


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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


SACOG 

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 0.5 0.5 

Posted speed


SACOG 

California St. from W. Court St. to W. Main St. 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 1 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

W. Lincoln Ave. from West St. to Grand Ave. Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

W. Lincoln Ave. from Academy Ln./McKinley to Cleveland St. Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Main St. from West St. to Grand Ave. 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 1 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Main St. from Academy Ln./McKinley Ave. to Cleveland St. Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 1 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Court St. from West St. to Cleveland St. 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 1 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Grand Ave. from Lincoln Ave. to Main St. 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Academy Ln./McKinley Ave. from Lincoln Ave. to Oak Ave. 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Saunders Wy. from Lincoln Ave. to Oak Ave. (alley) 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Cleveland St. from Main St. to Lincoln Ave. 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 1 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

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 3.43 0.3349 

% 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 

5 5 8 4.5 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 5 8 5 5 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


SACOG 


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 3.65 0.4001 

% 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 



ROW 

69 ft 


Range 

Checks 


5 5 10 0 0 0 14.5 0 15 0 0 0 10 5 5 OK 


Location: California St. from W. Court St. to W. Main St. 

Important? 


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 
















74


SACOG 


Pseg A 1.70 

MMLOS 


ADT 4,736 (>=0 vpd) OK Yes Model 1 C 2.76 Auto D 3.70 0.3256 

% 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 



ROW 

60 ft 


Range 

Checks 


5 5 8 0 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 8 5 5 OK 


Location: W. Lincoln Ave. from West St. to Grand Ave. 

Important? 


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 







Peaking Factor (k) 0.09 Yes % Parking Occ. 50% Yes % On Time 86% No Unsig Conflicts/Mile 5No 



Adj. Sat Flow (vphgl) 1800 Yes X-Street Vol. (vph) 188 Yes CBD (Yes/No) No No 






75


SACOG 


Pseg C 3.02 

MMLOS 


ADT 14,171 (>=0 vpd) OK Yes Model 1 D 3.71 Auto C 2.78 0.4871 



Peds/hr 150 (>=0 pph) OK If Very High RCDF 2 A 1.20 Pedestrian D 3.71 


ROW 

74 ft 


Range 

Checks 


8 5 0 0 0 12 12 0 12 12 0 0 0 5 8 OK 


Location: W. Main St. from California St. to West St. 

Important? 


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 








Directional Factor (d) 0.55 Yes Barrier (Yes/No) no Yes % Stops w. Benches 0% No 








76


SACOG 


Pseg B 2.72 

MMLOS 


ADT 13,230 (>=0 vpd) OK Yes Model 1 D 3.58 Auto D 3.76 0.4548 



Peds/hr 150 (>=0 pph) OK If Very High RCDF 2 A 1.20 Pedestrian D 3.58 


ROW 

74 ft 


Range 

Checks 


8 5 0 0 0 12 12 0 12 12 0 0 0 5 8 OK 


Location: Main St. from West St. to Grand Ave. 

Important? 


Street : Main St. Yes Signal Spacing: 441 (200-10,560 ft.) OK 


To: Grand Ave. slight Speed Limit 25 (15-70 mph) OK 








Directional Factor (d) 0.55 Yes Barrier (Yes/No) no Yes % Stops w. Benches 0% No 








77


SACOG 


Pseg B 2.09 

MMLOS 







ROW 

84 ft 


Range 

Checks 


5 5 8 0 0 12 12 0 12 12 0 0 8 5 5 OK 


Location: W. Court St. from California St. to West St. 

Important? 


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 
















78


SACOG 


Pseg B 2.28 

MMLOS 



% HV 5% (0-100%) OK No Model 2 D 3.62 Transit C 2.95 




ROW 

80 ft 


Range 

Checks 


5 11 10 0 0 0 14 0 14 0 0 0 10 11 5 OK 


Location: Court St. from West St. to Cleveland St. 

Important? 


Street : Court St. Yes Signal Spacing: 1,322 (200-10,560 ft.) OK 


To: Cleveland St. slight Speed Limit 25 (15-70 mph) OK 
















79


SACOG 


Pseg A 1.96 

MMLOS 


ADT 4,500 (>=0 vpd) OK Yes Model 1 B 2.50 Auto C 3.19 0.3094 

% HV 5% (0-100%) OK No Model 2 B 2.58 Transit F 6.38 


Peds/hr 60 (>=0 pph) OK If Very High RCDF 2 A 0.87 Pedestrian B 2.50 


ROW 

56 ft 


Range 

Checks 


5 4 7 0 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 7 4 5 OK 


Location: Cleveland St. from Main St. to Lincoln Ave. 

Important? 


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 










Adj. Sat Flow (vphgl) 1800 Yes X-Street Vol. (vph) 531 Yes CBD (Yes/No) No No 






80


SACOG 

Appendix E: Detailed PPM Results for Roseville Case Study Area by Segment 

2nd St. from B St. to Riverside 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

3rd St. from B St. to Riverside 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

4th St. from B St. to Riverside 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Riverside from Cherry to 3rd St. 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 1 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Riverside from Bonita to 2nd St. 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 1 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Douglas from Riverside to Clinton 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Bonita from Clinton to Riverside 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Cherry from Riverside to Clinton 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Earl from Cherry to Bonita 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Earl from Bonita to Douglas 

Points 




Auto LOS 2 2 






TDM 0 1 


Posted speed


SACOG 

Appendix F: Walkscore.com Methodology 


91


SACOG 


92


SACOG 


93


SACOG 


94


SACOG 


95


SACOG 


96


SACOG 


97


SACOG 


98

Application of New Pedestrian Level of Service Measures - sacog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?