The complexity involved in evaluating a transportation system, as reflected in the large number of, and often conflicting, goals and objectives postulated by various groups affected by the system, is discussed. Desired improvements can encompass, for example, a reduction in person hours of travel, vehicle delay, traffic volume, or energy consumption as well as an increase in the number of transit passengers. Alternative strategies may result in different changes in each of the variables. Existing evaluation procedures, like goal-achievement analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis, are shown to have var ioull disadvantages, the main one being an inability to compare the different magnitudes of improvement caused by different variables. A benefit-cost analysis can address this problem only if the variables evaluated can all be reduced to monetary terms, which is seldom possible. An evaluation procedure is proposed in which a panel of decision makers representing the various interests affected by the transportation system allocates weighting factors to the selected variables. The utility analysis can be used, thus allowing conflicting views to be presented in an open discussion and a consensus to be reached. The weighted worth of all variables is then summed to give the level of service of the transportation system (LTS), which allows the comparison of one strategy with another, enabling decision makers to select the most suitable alternative.