Application of New Pedestrian Level of Service Measures - sacog

Application of New Pedestrian Level of Service Measures
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