Auto delay is one lens. In urban Florida contexts, agencies increasingly ask what the corridor does to people walking, biking, and riding the bus — and there are established methods for answering, so “we’ll describe it qualitatively” is no longer a free pass.
When agencies require multimodal measures
- Context classification: on the SHS, C4–C6 contexts push complete-streets criteria and multimodal evaluation into scopes — pull the class first per FDOT Context Classification.
- Local TIA guidelines: several Tampa Bay agencies’ methodologies ask for ped/bike/transit assessment in urban areas, and mobility-plan / mobility-fee jurisdictions have replaced vehicle-LOS concurrency with multimodal measures entirely — which measures, and with what method, varies by ordinance, so confirm at the methodology meeting and write it into the memo (Methodology Memo Skeleton).
- Safety overlays: projects on Vision Zero / High Injury Network corridors draw multimodal scrutiny regardless of what the TIA guidelines say — see Vision Zero and the HIN (Tampa Bay).
HCM MMLOS vs FDOT Q/LOS
Two families, two purposes — know which one the agency expects before running anything:
- HCM MMLOS (lineage: NCHRP 3-70): pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS scores computed alongside auto in the HCM urban-streets chapters (segments and facilities; ped methods updated in the 7th Edition —
#status/verifychapter numbers against the edition you cite). Operational and data-hungry (cross-sections, volumes, speeds, signal timing); the letter grade comes from a numeric score, so report both. Lives in Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and the software that implements it. - FDOT Q/LOS: the Multimodal Quality/Level of Service Handbook plus the generalized service volume tables — planning-level screening with Florida defaults, the method most comp-plan and concurrency-style checks quote. Lives in FDOT Quality LOS Handbook.
Warning
Don’t mix families in one results table. A planning-level Q/LOS letter next to an HCM operational letter looks like the same measure and isn’t — label the method per row, and never defend an operational conclusion with a generalized table.
Tip
FDOT’s LOSPLAN suite (ARTPLAN / FREEPLAN / HIGHPLAN) is free and implements HCM-based multimodal methods with Florida defaults — ARTPLAN covers ped, bike, and bus LOS on arterials. Download and details in FDOT Quality LOS Handbook; it’s the no-license way to produce a defensible multimodal number.
Bike facility selection — the speed/volume ladder
The logic is universal: as motor-vehicle speed and volume rise, the required separation rises — shared lane → conventional bike lane → buffered bike lane → separated bike lane or shared-use path. What changes between documents is where the thresholds sit:
- FDM 223 (Bicycle Facilities) and FDM 224 (Shared Use Paths) — the criteria that control on the SHS, keyed to context classification.
- FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (FHWA-SA-18-077, 2019) — the federal chart relating speed/volume to facility type; good justification language everywhere.
- NACTO Designing for All Ages & Abilities — the urban-agency version cities like Tampa and St. Pete reference; see NACTO Design Guides.
Warning
The speed/volume breakpoints differ between FDM, FHWA, and NACTO and get revised — read them from the current edition of whichever document governs your project, never from memory or from this note
#status/verify per project.
Pedestrian LOS drivers
- Segment comfort: what the models actually score is dominated by the buffer (separation width, planted strips, parked cars) and the volume/speed of traffic in the adjacent lane — an 8-ft sidewalk against a 45-mph curb lane scores worse than a 5-ft walk behind a swale.
- Crossing spacing: the driver the segment score misses — if safe crossings are far apart, the real ped experience is a long detour or a midblock dash, whatever the letter says. Where spacing is the problem, evaluate a treatment per Midblock Crossing Evaluation (RRFB PHB Signal).
- At intersections: crossing distance (curb-to-curb, number of lanes), signal delay, and conflicts from permissive/RTOR turns. Accessibility is a separate, non-negotiable layer — PROWAG and ADA.
Transit considerations
- Frequency dominates perceived transit LOS; reliability and span come next — infrastructure fixes can’t buy back a 60-minute headway.
- The walk to the stop is part of transit LOS: sidewalk connectivity, a crossing near the stop, shelter/pad. A TIA that adds a stop without a crossing has created a midblock dash.
- Deep reference: TRB’s Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM, free from National Academies Press); ARTPLAN covers the bus mode at planning level; ridership and route data via Florida Transit Information System (FTIS).
Example
Scoping a TIA on a C4 arterial: agency methodology asks for multimodal measures. Pull context class and AADT → screen ped/bike/bus with ARTPLAN (free, Florida defaults) → flag the segment where the bike score collapses (no buffer, high speed) → check the governing selection guidance (FDM 223 on the SHS) for what facility that speed/volume implies → recommend, and note crossing spacing at the two transit stops. One page per mode beats a paragraph of adjectives.
See also: FDOT Quality LOS Handbook · Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) · FDOT Context Classification · NACTO Design Guides · Workflow - TIA from Request to Submittal