Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBozeman-Gateway-PUD_Ph-4-Apts_TIS_20210308_App-A Appendix A Level of Service Concepts, Analysis Methodologies, & Standards of Significance Appendix A: Level of Service Concepts, Analysis Methodologies, & Standards of Significance | A-1 Traffic Impact Study - Bozeman Gateway PUD, Phase 4 Apartments March 2021 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service The method presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition | A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) for evaluating unsignalized, stop-controlled intersections is based on the average total delay for each impeded movement. As used here, total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. This time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue to the first-in-queue position. The average total delay for any minor movement is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation. The resulting delay is used to determine the level of service as shown in Table A-1 below. Table A-1: Level of Service Criteria for Stop-Controlled Intersections Average Control Delay Level of Service (LOS) Characteristics  10 seconds A Little or no delay 10.0 – 15.0 seconds B Short traffic delay 15.0 – 25.0 seconds C Average traffic delay 25.0 – 35.0 seconds D Long traffic delays 35.0 – 50.0 seconds E Very long traffic delays > 50.0 seconds F When the demand exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered, and queuing may cause severe congestion to the intersection. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition | A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (Transportation Research Board, 2016) Figure A-16: Control Delay and Flow Rate Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Page 17-24 (Transportation Research Board, 2000) A-2 | Appendix A: Level of Service Concepts, Analysis Methodologies, & Standards of Significance Traffic Impact Study - Bozeman Gateway PUD, Phase 4 Apartments March 2021 Signalized Intersection Level of Service The operational analysis method for signalized intersections presented in the HCM defines level of service in terms of delay, or more specifically, control stopped delay per vehicle. Delay is a measure of driver and/or passenger discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The level of service criteria for signalized intersections is presented in Table A-2 below: Table A-2: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay Level of Service (LOS) Characteristics  10 seconds A Operations with very low delay. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. 10.0 – 20.0 seconds B Operations with generally good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. 20.0 – 35.0 seconds C Operations with higher delays, which may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. 35.0 – 55.0 seconds D Operations with high delay, resulting from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable, and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 55.0 – 80.0 seconds E Considered being the limit of acceptable delay. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 80.0 seconds F A condition of excessively high delay considered unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition | A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (Transportation Research Board, 2016)