RIDERSHIP FORECAST SUMMARY 2028 and 2042: Los Angeles

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

APPENDIX G: RIDERSHIP FORECAST SUMMARY 2028 AND 2042

G.1 INTRODUCTION

This ridership forecast summary describes the ridership estimates for six scenarios for the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank Feasibility Study. The ridership forecasts are based on the LA Metro Corridors Based Model 18 (CBM18), adapted for use in this study.

The six scenarios were evaluated through a series of performance measures that inform decision- making around rail alternatives in the corridor. These performance measures are reported for the CBM18 model region, which includes six counties in Southern California (Los Angeles County, Imperial County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and Ventura County) as well as the study area. The performance measures are presented in Table G-1. This report summarizes the validation of the model, provides an overview of the scenarios, describes the performance measures for each scenario, and documents the risk analysis conducted for the study.

Page 164

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

Table G-1. Performance Measures for the Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank study PERFORMANCE MEASURE COMMENTS DEFINITION Ridership Forecasts Transit trips can include transfers and represent person trips from the Transit Trips are average weekday origin to the destination. Higher transit trips indicate that the travelers transit trips for the region are choosing to ride transit more often because the transit service alignment provides better service Mode Share is the average total Higher transit mode shares indicate that the travelers are choosing weekday regional transit trips divided transit more often because the transit service alignment provides by the average total weekday regional better service person trips Boardings are from station to station so, for example, a transit trip that Boardings are average weekday includes one transfer represents two boardings. Boardings per station boardings for the region and by are also reported to assess the new transit services on a per station station for the new service basis Transfer Rate is the total boardings Travelers prefer fewer transfers so lower transfer rates indicate better divided by the total transit trips transit service Peak Load includes an assessment of the number of transit riders on a This allows a comparison of the peak load to the capacity of the transit route segment and direction during services provided the peak hour Market Analysis These are transit trips within the Study area, with one end in the Study Transit Trips by Market segment are and outside the study area These are transit trips to/from the North of the Study area, to/from the Transit Trips by Direction segment South of the Study area, to/from the East of the Study Area and to/from the West of the Study area These are trips by market segment and identifies the percent of new Low-Income Work Transit Trips transit trips that are low-income work trips. This is the only income segment segmentation available within the Metro model so is used to consider equity for each scenario

Traffic Forecasts Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the average weekday auto trips times the This measure indicates how much the alignment is reducing auto travel miles traveled

Page 165

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

G.2 MODEL VALIDATION

The CBM18 model is validated for the base year 2017. Ridership for the Antelope Valley and Ventura County Metrolink lines were reviewed to confirm the model is producing reasonable results in the study area. The CBM18 routes were reviewed and then updated the Metrolink system to 2017 timetables. In addition, walk access times were revised for the Santa Ana and Glendale stations to 1 minute and for Burbank and Orange stations to 30 seconds. These provided a more precise walk access times to these stations in the 2017 model.

Table G-2 presents a summary of the boardings for Metrolink services compared to observed ridership. Observed ridership is represented by the 2017 ticket-based ridership as reported in the Metro document titled, “WW-TAC-001-P-Station Boarding by Year”. The initial CBM18 model produced reasonable ridership for the commuter rail system, reporting ridership within 8 percent of observed ridership, but the Antelope Valley and Ventura County Lines were significantly over- estimating ridership. After the calibration adjustments mentioned above, the overall commuter rail system ridership was still reasonable (within 9 percent of observed ridership) and the Antelope Valley and Ventura County lines were within 3 percent and 7 percent of observed ridership, respectively.

Table G-2. 2017 Boardings for Metrolink Services Compared to Observed

2017 Ticket CBM18 CBM18 Calibrated Calibrated Line Based Estimate Variance Estimate Variance Ridership

Perris Valley 3,258 1,816 -44% 4,701 44% Antelope Valley 6,044 8,688 44% 5,888 -3% Inland Empire 5,111 4,249 -17% 5,238 2% Orange Line 10,639 6,678 -37% 6,285 -41% Riverside 4,050 2,831 -30% 3,572 -12% San Bernardino 9,721 8,357 -14% 8,753 -10% Ventura 4,377 7,047 61% 4,700 7% Totals 43,200 39,666 -8% 39,137 -9%

G.3 SCENARIOS

G.3.1 NO-BUILD SCENARIOS

The project team conducted the scenario analysis for both 2028 and 2042 using a base year of 2017. Metro technical staff provided 2017, 2028, and 2042 no-build trip tables and networks. The project team’s analysis is consistent with the following projects currently in the planning and environmental phase:

• West Santa Ana Branch • Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Page 166

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

• Vermont Transit Corridor • North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) The project team updated the No-Build scenarios for 2028 and 2042 to reflect the other network changes expected, such as the Vermont Corridor BRT and the North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT. The project team added the Vermont Corridor BRT to the network as a new fixed guideway. The North San Fernando Valley BRT connects with the existing Orange Line BRT and the proposed North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT at the North Hollywood station.

The project team made several additional changes to the CBM18 2042 No-Build Scenario to provide consistency across corridors:

• Changed the proposed East San Fernando Light Rail run times to reflect the speed of at- grade running times for a total time of 30 minutes, as per the operations plan provided by Metro. • Removed the Sepulveda Transit Corridor segment between Exposition Boulevard and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). • Redistributed university trips to destinations in traffic analysis zones (TAZ) which contain the California State University Northridge (CSUN) campus. University trips assigned to TAZ 347 were shifted to TAZ 349 and TAZ 348 where CSUN is located.26

The 2042 No-Build Scenario is used as a basis for evaluating alignments in the North San Fernando Valley Study area, so all services included in the No-Build are present in the build scenarios.

G.3.2 BUILD SCENARIOS

There are six build scenarios along the Los Angeles to Burbank corridor:

• Enhanced Metrolink Service M Option 60 (60-min Bi-directional) M Option 30 (30-min Bi-directional) M Option 15 (15-min Bi-directional) • Rail Multiple Unit (RMU) Option Blended RMU + Metrolink (15-min Bi-directional) • New Light Rail Transit (LRT) Service L Option 1 (LRT Service – LGB Corridor) L Option 2 (LRT Service – Downtown Glendale and Burbank)

26 Similar evaluations of university trips around Pierce College and California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) indicated a need to shift university trips to their respective campuses.

Page 167

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

The enhanced Metrolink service in the first three scenarios is primarily defined by the service frequency (60-minutes, 30-minutes, or 15-minutes). In addition, there are four new stations in the RMU overlay scenario as shown in Figure G-1.

Figure G-1 New Stations Proposed in the RMU Overlay Scenario

Figure G-2 presents the alignment and stations for the two LRT scenarios.

Page 168

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

Figure G-2. New Stations and Alignments Proposed in LRT Scenarios

The Metrolink lines are shown in Figure G-3. In 2028, the M Option 60 scenario stops at Via Princessa where all other scenarios stop at Vista Canyon instead. In 2042, all scenarios stop at Vista Canyon. The Vista Canyon station will replace the Via Princessa station as part of a future transit-oriented community development in Santa Clarita27.

27 Vista Canyon Multi-Modal Center, Santa Clarita Transit 2016 http://santaclaritatransit.com/vista-canyon- regional-transit-center/

Page 169

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

Figure G-3. Metrolink Antelope Valley and Ventura County Lines

Ventura County Line Antelope Valley Line

G.3.3 TRAVEL TIMES

Travel times have a significant impact on mode choice. For transit riders, travel time includes access time, wait time, in-vehicle time, transfer time, and egress time. The in-vehicle times for each scenario in this corridor vary according to vehicle type and alignment and direction are shown in Figure G-4. Travel times on the Antelope Valley Line are similar outbound and inbound from Lancaster to Via Princessa but vary by scenario from Via Princessa to Los Angeles. In the No-Build and LRT scenarios, the outbound travel time from Via Princessa to Los Angeles is 12 minutes longer than inbound. In the M and RMU Option scenarios, the outbound travel time from Via Princessa to Los Angeles is 4-6 minutes shorter than the inbound.

Page 170

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

Figure G-4. In-Vehicle Travel Times on antelope Valley Line by Scenario

L Option 2 L Option 1 DMURMU Option Option MM Option Option 6 15 MM Option Option 5 30 MM Option Option 4 60 2042 No-Build

- 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2042 No- M Option M Option M Option DMU M 60 M 30 M 15 RMU L Option 1 L Option 2 Build 4 5 6 OptionOption AVL from Princessa Outbound 86 64 64 69 75 86 86 AVL from Lancaster to Princessa 56 57 57 58 52 56 56 Outbound

RMU Option M Option 15 M Option 30 M Option 60

RMU M 60 M 30 M 15 Option

G.3.4 FARES

Cost is also a significant factor in choosing any mode. All costs are represented in 2011 dollars for all future years, based on the assumption that transportation costs will increase at the same rate as inflation (represented by the Consumer Price Index).

For the Los Angeles to Glendale to Burbank corridor, the light rail fare is $1.50 for all station to station pairs. Station to station fares were set to start from Metrolink Burbank downtown to every other station. The Metrolink fare assumptions (see Figure G-5) were set in the Metro model and were not varied for any scenario.

Page 171

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

Figure G-5. Metrolink Fare Assumptions

Station Name Fare Station Name Fare Station Name Fare C-Glendale Transit Center C-Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs C-Metrolink Santa Ana C-Metrolink Sun Valley C-Metrolink Buena Park C-Metrolink Tustin C-Metrolink Sylmar/San Fernando C-Fullerton Transportation Center C-Irvine Transportation Center C-Metrolink Santa Clarita 3.18 C-Cal State LA C-Metrolink Laguna Niguel C-Palmdale Transportation Center C-Metrolink Montebello C-Metrolink San Juan Capistrano 9.42 C-Union Station C-Moreno Valley/March Field C-Metrolink Pomona 6.36 C-Burbank Airport Hollywood Way C-Downtown Perris C-Metrolink Claremont C-Metrolink Newhall C-South Perris C-Metrolink Montclair C-Metrolink Princessa C-Metrolink Riverside-La Sierra C-Metrolink Upland 4.71 C-Burbank-Bob Hope Airport C-Metrolink North Main Corona C-Downtown Pomona C-Metrolink Van Nuys C-Metrolink West Corona C-Metrolink Anaheim Canyon 9.54 C-Metrolink Northridge C-Riverside Hunter Park C-Metrolink San Clemente C-Chatsworth C-Metrolink Vincent Grade/Acton C-Metrolink Rancho Cucamonga 6.24 10.95 C-Metrolink Simi Valley C-Metrolink Lancaster 7.76 C-Metrolink Pedley C-Metrolink Northridge v2 C-Metrolink Moorpark C-Metrolink East Ontario C-Metrolink Anaheim C-Metrolink Commerce 11.07 C-Metrolink Orange C-Metrolink Fontana C-Metrolink El Monte C-Metrolink Rialto 7.89 12.48 C-Metrolink Baldwin Park C-Metrolink San Bernardino C-Metrolink Covina C-Metrolink Riverside-Downtown C-Metrolink Industry

G.4 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS

Five types of analysis to evaluate ridership for the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank study area were conducted: transit trips and boardings, mode shifts, boardings by station, market analysis, and traffic analysis. There are performance indicators for each type of analysis to produce a comprehensive view of the ridership benefits and impacts by scenario.

G.4.1 TRANSIT TRIPS AND BOARDINGS

Tables G-3 and G-4 present ridership statistics, transit trips, and boardings for each scenario in the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank study area for 2042 and 2028, respectively. All scenarios increase transit trips and total boardings as expected.

Table G-3. 2042 Transit Trips and Boardings Summary

DMU Option L Option 2 L Option 1 M Option 4 M Option 5 M Option 6 Enhanced LRT Service 2042 No- M Option M Option M Option RMU LRT Service 60-min Bi- 30-min Bi- 15-min Bi- Metrolink – Downtown Build 60 30 15 Option – LAGB directional directional directional Service with Glendale and Corridor DMU Overlay Burbank Person and Transit Trips Total Person Trips 77,652,996 77,652,996 77,652,996 77,652,996 77,652,996 77,652,996 77,652,996 Transit Trips 1,729,135 1,731,272 1,732,215 1,743,903 1,741,245 1,743,298 1,744,356 Change in Transit Trips 2,137 3,080 14,768 12,110 14,163 15,221 Boardings by Operator Total Boardings 2,960,024 2,961,924 2,963,565 2,991,239 2,983,676 3,000,146 3,004,722 Change in Total Boardings 1,900 3,541 31,215 23,652 40,122 44,698 Total Metro Boardings 2,220,548 2,218,265 2,216,036 2,227,128 2,225,808 2,260,363 2,265,302 Change in Metro Boardings -2,283 -4,512 6,580 5,260 39,815 44,754 Total Metrolink Boardings 104,882 109,539 112,810 128,717 123,342 103,291 103,410 Change in Metrolink Boardings 4,657 7,928 23,835 18,460 -1,591 -1,472

Page 172

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

Table G-4. 2028 Transit Trips and Boardings Summary

DMU Option L Option 2 L Option 1 M Option 4 M Option 5 M Option 6 Enhanced LRT Service 2028 No- M Option M Option M Option RMU LRT Service 60-min Bi- 30-min Bi- 15-min Bi- Metrolink – Downtown Build 60 30 15 Option – LAGB directional directional directional Service with Glendale and Corridor DMU Overlay Burbank Person and Transit Trips Total Person Trips 70,878,957 70,878,957 70,878,957 70,878,957 70,878,957 70,878,957 70,878,957 Transit Trips 1,551,747 1,551,960 1,556,240 1,563,489 1,560,819 1,563,672 1,564,101 Change in Transit Trips 213 4,493 11,742 9,072 11,925 12,354 Boardings by Operator Total Boardings 2,519,677 2,520,181 2,530,686 2,546,047 2,537,971 2,553,726 2,556,583 Change in Total Boardings 504 11,009 26,370 18,294 34,049 36,906 Total Metro Boardings 1,847,813 1,847,504 1,849,992 1,851,818 1,847,669 1,881,153 1,884,071 Change in Metro Boardings -309 2,179 4,005 -144 33,340 36,258 Total Metrolink Boardings 72,036 72,783 80,033 93,790 90,500 72,165 72,131 Change in Metrolink Boardings 747 7,997 21,754 18,464 129 95

Three scenarios (M Option 15 and both LRT Options) increase transit trips in 2042 by more than 14,000, with L Option 2 increasing transit trips by 15,221. M Option 15 does have almost as many new transit riders as L Option 2 but fewer boardings, indicating that the service provides more direct service with fewer transfers. L Option 2 has the highest increase in total boardings and Metro boardings.

M Options 60 and 30 do shift some boardings from Metro to Metrolink in 2042 and the LRT Option 1 and 2 scenarios shift some boardings from Metrolink to Metro in 2042. These shifts are expected given the improvements in service for each scenario.

2028 boardings have a similar pattern to 2042 boardings with a few exceptions. 2028 has more bus improvements and 2042 has more rail improvements, resulting in the following:

• M Option 60 has no increase in boardings • RMU Option has no increase in Metro boardings • LRT Options does not shift boardings from Metrolink The additional rail improvements in 2042 provide a more comprehensive rail system, complementing the rail improvements in the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank study area.

G.4.2 MODE SHIFTS

Mode shifts identify where new services offer a better alternative than other services. Tables G-5 and G-6 provide mode shifts for each scenario in 2042 and 2028, respectively. In 2042, all scenarios shift travelers away from Local Bus by providing a better service. The LRT Option 1 shifts riders from Rapid Bus and BRT to Metro Rail, the LRT Option 2 shifts riders from Rapid Bus and Metrolink to Metro Rail.

In 2028, there is less mode shifting but still reflects a similar pattern shifting from bus to rail. L Option 1 shifts riders from Rapid Bus and BRT to Metro Rail and L Option 2 shifts riders from Rapid Bus and Local Bus to Metro Rail. M Options and RMU scenarios shift riders from Local Bus and BRT to Metro Rail.

Page 173

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

Table G-5. 2042 shifts by Transit Mode and Operator

DMU Option L Option 2 L Option 1 M Option 4 M Option 5 M Option 6 Enhanced LRT Service 2042 No- M Option M Option RMU LRT Service 60-min Bi- 30-min Bi- 15-minM Option Bi- Metrolink – Downtown Build 60 30 – LAGB directional directional directional15 ServiceOption with Glendale and Corridor DMU Overlay Burbank Boardings by Mode Difference from 2042 No-Build Metrolink 104,882 4,657 7,928 23,835 18,460 -1,591 -1,472 Metro Local 832,814 -1,619 -1,718 -442 -823 -1,170 -2,964 Metro Express 1,321 -4 -5 -2 0 -3 -2 Metro Rail 1,031,757 375 -909 8,857 7,100 50,461 48,864 LB (Commerce, Santa Fe Springs 7,322 -47 -62 -42 -54 -19 -86 LB (LADOT, Glendale, Duarte) 84,953 -355 34 -703 -1,302 852 570 LB (Norwalk, Long Beach, Santa Clarita) 79,353 13 310 911 623 204 84 LB (Torrance, Santa Monica, Culver) 101,499 -276 -221 225 231 23 65 LB (Foothill, Montebello) 78,576 -36 -66 135 139 266 284 LB (Moorpark, Simi Valley,Thousand Oaks) 12,134 5 4 26 32 13 10 LB (OCTA, Omnitrans, Riverside) 219,384 220 241 396 324 294 233 Exp Bus (Santa Monica, Gardena,LADOT) 11,910 -71 -183 -279 -200 -90 -105 Exp Bus (MAX, Foothill) 4,706 43 38 59 52 22 24 Exp Bus (Vista,OCTA, Omni, Simi) 8,458 -3 -8 -3 -8 9 10 Metro Rapid 170,308 -137 -438 -268 -122 -2,453 -2,682 Metro Transitway 38,023 97 112 106 82 412 399 Metro BRT 172,624 -962 -1,516 -1,596 -882 -7,108 1,466 Total Boardings 2,960,024 1,900 3,541 31,215 23,652 40,122 44,698

Table G-6. 2028 Shifts by Transit Mode and Operator

DMU Option L Option 2 L Option 1 M Option 4 M Option 5 M Option 6 Enhanced LRT Service 2028 No- M Option M Option M Option LRT Service 60-min Bi- 30-min Bi- 15-min Bi- MetrolinkRMU – Downtown Build – LAGB directional60 directional30 directional15 ServiceOption with Glendale and Corridor DMU Overlay Burbank Boardings by Mode Difference from 2028 No-Build Metrolink 72,036 747 7,997 21,754 18,464 129 95 Metro Local 790,859 -275 -691 320 -443 2,118 470 Metro Express 4,135 -14 -31 -692 -904 -1,208 -1,334 Metro Rail 668,279 472 4,262 5,188 1,802 42,176 40,442 LB (Commerce, Santa Fe Springs 6,894 -14 4 -10 -40 -5 -29 LB (LADOT, Glendale, Duarte) 66,755 29 418 446 452 1,447 1,881 LB (Norwalk, Long Beach, Santa Clarita) 74,285 4 440 799 580 191 164 LB (Torrance, Santa Monica, Culver) 105,847 -31 67 151 13 118 44 LB (Foothill, Montebello) 79,157 -52 -44 90 45 62 -81 LB (Moorpark, Simi Valley,Thousand Oaks) 11,204 -5 -2 11 23 13 19 LB (OCTA, Omnitrans, Riverside) 198,802 42 119 231 171 256 204 Exp Bus (Santa Monica, Gardena,LADOT) 19,582 133 -144 -483 -422 -257 -232 Exp Bus (MAX, Foothill) 4,764 3 15 18 14 -11 -8 Exp Bus (Vista,OCTA, Omni, Simi) 9,394 -7 -1 14 1 35 26 Metro Rapid 178,242 -89 -330 -526 -706 -1,847 -2,194 Metro Transitway 39,152 -28 50 91 47 31 1 Metro BRT 190,290 -411 -1,120 -1,032 -803 -9,199 -2,562 Total Boardings 2,519,677 504 11,009 26,370 18,294 34,049 36,906

Page 174

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

G.4.3 BOARDINGS BY STATION

Boardings were analyzed by station for the six scenarios to better understand the local impacts of the improvements. As shown in Table G-7, M Option 15 results in the highest boardings per station in both 2042 and 2028.

Table G-7. 2042 and 2028 Boardings per Station

G.4.3.1 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE

Tables G-8 and G-9 present the 2042 and 2028 boardings for the Antelope Valley Line, respectively. The highest volume station in all scenarios is Union Station with multiple transfer opportunities to other rail lines. Palmdale and Sylmar stations also have high boardings in both forecast years, with transfers available to Express and Local Buses. Lancaster also has high boardings as the last station on the line, with parking available.

Table G-8. 2042 Boardings for Antelope Valley Line

DMU Option L Option 2 L Option 1 M Option 4 M Option 5 M Option 6 Enhanced LRT Service – 2042 No- M Option M Option M Option RMU LRT Service – 60-min Bi- 30-min Bi- 15-min Bi- Metrolink Downtown Build 60 30 15 Option LAGB directional directional directional Service with Glendale and Corridor DMU Overlay Burbank Station C-Union Station 9,335 11,650 12,891 16,963 14,023 5,959 6,052 River park 2,119 1,752 Fletcher 697 C-Glendale Transit Center 1,459 1,536 2,081 2,558 1,618 3,706 3,775 Broadway/W San Fernando 972 Sonora/Grandview 2,641 2,072 C-Metrolink Burbank 1,480 1,645 2,367 2,865 2,425 1,572 1,564 C-Burbank Airport Hollywood Way 709 717 1,045 1,598 1,325 623 633 C-Metrolink Sun Valley 811 882 1,145 1,516 1,324 768 771 C-Metrolink Sylmar/San Fernando 5,267 4,599 5,138 7,826 7,294 5,134 5,146 C-Metrolink Newhall 1,495 1,899 2,348 2,862 2,547 1,511 1,528 C-Metrolink Santa Clarita 1,505 1,534 1,812 2,098 1,884 1,402 1,405 C-Metrolink Vista Canyon 738 925 1,050 1,225 1,115 753 759 C-Metrolink Princessa C-Metrolink Vincent Grade/Acton 414 414 382 505 508 416 415 C-Palmdale Transportation Center 8,979 8,099 7,433 9,513 9,538 8,473 8,451 C-Metrolink Lancaster 3,816 4,207 3,895 4,948 4,961 3,949 3,945 Total 36,005 38,104 41,584 54,47759,234 54,052 34,263 34,441 Change from No-Build 2,099 5,579 23,229 18,047 (1,742) (1,564)

Page 175

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

Table G-9. 2028 Boardings for Antelope Valley Line

DMU Option L Option 2 L Option 1 M Option 4 M Option 5 M Option 6 Enhanced LRT Service – 2028 No- M Option M Option M Option RMU LRT Service – 60-min Bi- 30-min Bi- 15-min Bi- Metrolink Downtown Build LAGB directional60 directional30 directional15 ServiceOption with Glendale and Corridor DMU Overlay Burbank Station C-Union Station 5,413 5,295 8,103 10,840 8,520 3,747 3,791 River Park 1,368 737 Fletcher 653 C-Glendale Transit Center 966 1,024 1,693 3,034 2,449 2,132 2,261 Broadway/W San Fernando 1,434 Sonora/Grandview 2,928 2,512 C-Metrolink Burbank 883 876 1,588 3,857 3,918 695 657 C-Burbank Airport Hollywood Way 309 286 565 1,099 950 492 432 C-Metrolink Sun Valley 481 499 930 1,346 1,178 484 494 C-Metrolink Sylmar/San Fernando 1,524 1,229 2,315 3,666 3,099 1,412 1,421 C-Metrolink Newhall 965 1,094 1,727 2,144 1,904 1,010 1,022 C-Metrolink Santa Clarita 1,025 984 1,450 1,698 1,519 1,111 1,105 C-Metrolink Vista Canyon 276 446 548 486 293 271 C-Metrolink Princessa 652 C-Metrolink Vincent Grade/Acton 168 171 172 239 243 183 182 C-Palmdale Transportation Center 2,808 2,373 2,386 3,236 3,262 2,798 2,782 C-Metrolink Lancaster 1,307 1,449 1,475 2,002 2,021 1,480 1,466 Total 16,497 15,553 22,848 33,70938,000 34,882 15,834 15,880 Change from No-Build (944) 6,351 21,503 18,385 (663) (617) All scenarios use the Vista Canyon station in Santa Clarita instead of the Via Princessa station. In 2028, the No-Build scenario uses Via Princessa station and all scenarios use the Vista Canyon station.

G.4.3.2 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT) OPTIONS

Table G-10 presents the boardings by station for the two LRT Options. LRT Option 2 has higher boardings than LRT Option 1 in both 2028 and 2042, due primarily to different stations between Glendale LRT and Burbank Downtown LRT stations. Most stations grow between 2028 and 2042, although the Chinatown LRT station has a decline in boarding during this time due to shift in riders accessing LA Union Station. This is likely due to increased rail transfer opportunities in 2042 at Union Station with additional rail improvements across the region. There is also a higher than average increase in boardings at the Glendale LRT station from 2028 to 2042, again because of increase rail transfer opportunities.

Page 176

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

Table G-10. 2042 and 2028 Boardings by Station for LRT Options

2042 Boardings 2028 Boardings

L Option 2 LRT L Option 2 LRT L Option 1 Service – L Option 1 Service – Station LRT Service – Downtown LRT Service – Downtown LAGB Corridor Glendale and LAGB Corridor Glendale and Burbank Burbank

LA Union Station 14,653 13,008 10,517 9,491 ChinaTown LRT 5,114 4,429 5,966 4,978 Lincoln Heights 988 1,017 772 776 River Park 2,253 2,201 1,980 1,887 Fletcher 2,410 2,168 2,231 1,939 Glendale LRT 7,411 6,849 5,570 5,319 Broadway/Colorado 4,122 3,744 - Brand/Broadway 7,441 - 6,105 Brand/134 4,307 - 3,756 Sonora/Grandview 4,076 3,577 - Glenoaks/Sonora 4,192 - 3,734 Verduga/San Fernando 1,864 - 1,477 Burbank Downtown LRT 4,439 2,160 3,573 1,810 Empire 3,113 2,220 2,874 2,008 Burbank Airport North LRT 1,951 1,419 1,827 1,292 Total 50,527 53,272 42,628 44,571 G.4.4 MARKET ANALYSIS

G.4.4.1 GEOGRAPHIC MARKET ANALYSIS

The project team developed a geographic market segmentation for the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank study to better understand the transit travel patterns resulting from improved transit services in the corridor. The project team evaluated the new transit trips based on a set of super- districts designed for this study area, as shown in Figure G-6.

Page 177

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

Figure G-6. Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank Super-districts

The six alternatives for the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank study serve different markets, depending on the alternative (see Table G-11). The M Option and RMU alternatives serve trips outside the study area (51-76 percent) and with one endpoint in the study area (22-45 percent) primarily where the LRT Options serve primarily trips within the study area (39-49 percent) and trips with one endpoint in the study area (57-68 percent). This is expected given that the LRT Options are primarily oriented to more local travel than the M Option and RMU alternatives, which are primarily oriented to serving longer, more regional travel patterns.

Table G-11. 2042 New Transit Trip Market Summary

DMU Option L Option 2 L Option 1 M Option 4 M Option 5 M Option 6 Enhanced LRT Service – LRT Service – 60-min Bi- 30-min Bi- 15-min Bi- Metrolink Downtown LAGB directional directional directional Service with Glendale and Corridor DMU Overlay Burbank

Change from No-Build Within Study Area 42 145 915 1,156 5,535 7,384 With 1 Endpoint in Study Area 464 1,371 5,040 3,820 9,674 8,739 Outside Study Area 1,630 1,561 8,805 7,125 (1,049) (906) Percent Allocation Within Study Area 2% 5% 6% 10% 39% 49% With 1 Endpoint in Study Area 22% 45% 34% 32% 68% 57% Outside Study Area 76% 51% 60% 59% -7% -6% There are similar patterns in new transit trips in 2028 except that M Option 6 and the RMU Option have higher percentages of trips within the study area and lower percentages of one endpoint in the study area.

Page 178

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

G.4.4.2 INCOME MARKET ANALYSIS

The Metro model segments home-based work travel into three groups by household income. The new transit trips that are made by low-income households for home-based work purposes were evaluated. While this is only a portion of all trips, this offers a means to evaluate the impact of different alternatives on low-income households. Figure G-7 presents the percent of new home- based work transit trips that are low-income. The LRT Option alternatives provide more opportunities for low-income work trips than other alternatives.

Figure G-7. Percent of New Home-based Work Transit Trips that are Low-Income

G.4.5 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

The traffic analysis measure is a calculation of VMT to estimate changes in auto travel across the region. The CBM18 model calculates VMT as the product of auto vehicle trips and miles traveled. In the CBM18 model, miles traveled are fixed across alignments and changes in VMT are a direct result of changes in auto vehicle trips. A reduction of VMT is expected for the transit service improvements in each alternative, since some new transit trips will have diverted from auto modes to take transit.

Table G-12 presents a market analysis of the changes in VMT for each alternative. As expected, there are VMT reductions for all markets where there are new transit trips. In the LRT Options, there are reductions in transit trips outside the study area and there are associated increases in VMT for these markets. In the case of M Option 60, individual increases in new transit trips by super-district are quite small and there are rounding issues with cumulative estimates of new transit trips and VMT that produce small increases in VMT within the study area and with one endpoint in the study area and small increases in new transit trips, but these are not significant and so are not a concern.

Page 179

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

Table G-12. 2042 VMT Market Summary

M Option M Option M Option RMU L Option 1 L Option 2 60 30 15

Change from No-Build

Within Study Area 41 (216) (584) (755) (8,279) (9,499)

With 1 Endpoint in Study Area 1,336 (12,337) (94,895) (71,998) (134,575) (101,398)

Outside Study Area (56,876) (18,783) (248,396) (209,168) 35,842 36,553

Percent Allocation

Within Study Area 0% 1% 0% 0% 8% 13%

With 1 Endpoint in Study Area -2% 39% 28% 26% 126% 136%

Outside Study Area 102% 60% 72% 74% -33% -49%

G.5 RISK ANALYSIS

G.5.1 APPROACH

The risk analysis conducted to support the ridership estimates for the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank Feasibility Study. The Metro Corridors Based Model 18 (CBM18) was used to complete the risk analysis of the six scenarios in the corridor. The M Option 30 scenario was chosen to conduct this risk analysis as the highest performing scenario, as reported to the Metro Planning and Programming Committee on July 17, 2019.

There are ten steps in the risk analysis process, as shown in Figure G-8. These steps are described in more detail and results are provided for each step to provide an understanding of the factors contributing to ridership forecasts for the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank study.

Page 180

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

Figure G-8. Ten Steps in Risk Analysis Process for Los Angeles – Glendale– Burbank

Step 1 • Existing (2017)

Step 2 • Existing + Project

Step 3 • Existing + 2028 Trips

Step 4 • Existing + Project + 2028 Trips

Step 5 • Interim Year (2028)

Step 6 • Interim Year + Project

Step 7 • Interim Year + 2042 Trips

Step 8 • Interim Year + Project + 2042 Trips

Step 9 • Cumulative (2042)

Step 10 • Cumulative + Project

G.5.2 EVALUATION OF RISK

The project team conducted a comprehensive evaluation of model uncertainty and variability for the study. This evaluation included modeling a stepwise set of alternatives to understand the cumulative impacts of changing infrastructure and land use over time. The following set of sensitivity model runs was conducted to understand the project forecasts reported in this report.

• Existing (2017) + Proposed Project • Existing (2017) + 2028 Trip Tables • Existing (2017) + Proposed Project + 2028 Trip Tables • Interim Year (2028) + Proposed Project • Interim Year (2028) + 2042 Trips Tables • Interim Year (2028) + Proposed Project + 2042 Trips Tables • Cumulative (2042) + Proposed Project These sensitivity runs were combined with previous model runs for 2017, 2028 and 2042 to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the impacts of growth and other future transportation investments in the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank corridor.

• Existing (2017) • Interim Year (2028) • Cumulative (2042) No-Build

Page 181

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

G.5.2.1 2042 DEMOGRAPHIC FORECASTS AND TRANSIT INVESTMENTS

As background for the evaluation of risk for the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank study, the project team compared an independent demographic forecast for Los Angeles County to the stepwise results from 2017 to 2042. The California Department of Finance produces population projections by county and year, which results in the following statistics for Los Angeles:

• Population of 10,271,792 for 2017 and 11,180,495 for 2042 in Los Angeles County, with a population growth of 9 percent from 2017 to 2042 • Population of 15,968,389 for 2017 and 18,497,036 for 2042 in the Southern California region (Los Angeles, Imperial, Ventura, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties), with a population growth of 16 percent from 2017 to 2042 The LA Metro model produces total person trips for each year, with 65,542,486-person trips in 2017 and 77,652,994 in 2042. This reflects an 18 percent increase in person trips for this timeframe.

The 2042 No-Build scenario includes several significant transit investments that are funded through 2042. These cumulative transit investments include the following large projects:

• Purple Line Extension • Gold Line Extension to Clairmont • Green Line Extension to Torrance • Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project • Regional Connector Transit Project • East San Fernando Valley Light Rail • Sepulveda Pass Heavy Rail Transit • West Santa Ana Branch Light Rail • SR-60 North Side Design Variation Alternative Alignment Light Rail • Vermont Corridor BRT • North San Fernando Valley BRT • North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT These 2042 statistics provide useful comparisons for the growth in transit trips and boardings reported below.

G.5.2.2 TRANSIT TRIPS

An increase in transit trips is the most important ridership statistic, since this increase represents new riders. The number of new transit riders represents a direct reduction in trips by other modes, primarily from auto modes but also from nonmotorized modes. Figure G-9 presents the number of total systemwide transit trips for each step in the stepwise process. As expected, the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank study project results in an increase in transit trips in each step of the stepwise modeling system (shown in orange on Figure G-9 as steps 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10) compared to the base for each step (shown in Figure G-9 as steps 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9). This project- only increase is quite small in 2017 and 2028 but is approximately one percent of total transit trips

Page 182

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019 in 2042. This larger increase is due to the added benefits of a larger rail transit system in 2042, increasing the benefits to the Antelope Valley Line.

There is a larger increase in transit trips due to demographic growth between 2017 and 2028 (6.3 percent increase between steps 2 and 4) and between 2028 and 2042 (7.4 percent increase between steps 6 and 8) for a total of 14 percent increase between 2017 and 2042. This result is close to the Southern California population projection of 16 percent increase for the region in the same timeframe.

Figure G-9. Transit Trips in the Stepwise Evaluation

There is another large increase in transit trips due to the additional funded transit projects, which are included in the 2028 and 2042 No-Build scenarios (20 percent increase between steps 3 and 5 in 2028 and 4 percent increase between steps 7 and 9). These projects are enumerated in the prior section for reference.

The demographic growth and cumulative transit investments reflect systemwide or regional impacts. The Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank study new transit trips reflect the direct and more localized impacts associated with the project and we therefore expect the impact to be smaller than regional influences.

G.5.2.3 REGIONAL BOARDINGS

The project team evaluated total systemwide boardings and project boardings for each step in the stepwise evaluation. The total systemwide boardings are presented in Figure G-10 for each step. As expected, the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank service improvements results in an

Page 183

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019 increase in transit trips in each step of the stepwise modeling system (shown in Figure G=10 as steps 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10) compared to the base for each step (shown in Figure G-10 as steps 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9). This increase ranges from one to four percent, depending on the step.

There is a smaller increase in regional boardings due to demographic growth between 2017 and 2028 (1.2 percent increase between steps 2 and 4) and between 2028 and 2042 (7.5 percent increase between steps 6 and 8) for a total of 9 percent increase between 2017 and 2042. This result falls between the Los Angeles population projection of 8 percent increase and the LA Metro projection of 18 percent increase in person trips in the same timeframe.

Figure G-10. Regional Boardings in the StepWise Evaluation

There is also a large increase due to additional funded (cumulative) transit projects, which are included in the 2028 No-Build scenario (34 percent increase between steps 3 and 5) and in the 2042 No-Build scenario (9 percent increase between steps 7 and 9). The increase in boardings due to additional funded transit projects in 2042 is higher than the increase in transit trips for this same comparison (34 percent versus 20 percent increase), indicating that transfer rates for Metro riders are increasing due to these additional transit investments.

Transfer rates are defined as the percent of riders who transfer (i.e. a transfer rate of 1.6 means that 60 percent of riders are transferring, and 40 percent of riders are not transferring). In 2017 (steps one through four), transfers are 1.5 boardings per trip. This compares to data from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey on transfer rates that indicate 55 percent of transit riders transfer. In 2028 (steps five through eight), transfers increase to 1.6 boardings per trip. In 2042 (steps nine and ten), transfers increase again to 1.7 boardings per trip. Transfer rates tend to

Page 184

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019 increase with higher frequency service, confirming the increase in transfer rates for 2028 and 2042 where there are higher levels of service. The forecasted increase in transfer rates gleaned from this evaluation is reasonable compared to the average indicated in the literature.

G.5.2.4 PROJECT BOARDINGS

Project boardings for the Antelope Valley Line by year and step are presented in Figure G-11. The project would result in 7,264 boardings (a 27 percent increase) in 2017 (Step 2) and 17,504 boardings (a five percent increase) in year 2028 and 41,587 boardings (a 15 percent increase) in 2042. The overall regional growth with the project is approximately 140 percent between 2017 and 2028 and again for the same growth rate out to 2042. This growth is consistent with the high growth expected in this corridor without the project (123 percent for Antelope Valley Line). Given that the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank service has transfers at Burbank, Glendale, and Los Angeles Union Station, this higher rate of growth for rail riders supports the higher rate of growth in boardings for the Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank study.

Figure G-11. Antelope Valley Line Boardings in the Stepwise Evaluation

G.5.2.5 SUMMARY

The Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank study ridership forecasts are reasonable based on this analysis of uncertainty and variability. The stepwise evaluation begins with the 2017 existing conditions and evaluates the impacts of demographic growth between 2017 and 2042 and impacts of other funded transportation investments on the ridership forecasts for the project.

Page 185

Los Angeles-Glendale-Burbank Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report October 2019

The stepwise evaluation begins with 1,218,358 (existing) 2017 linked transit trips. The demographic growth in population and employment result in 1,298,448 transit trips from the 2028 trip table that represent a 6.3 percent increase between 2017 and 2028 and 1,666,060 transit trips from the 2042 trip table that represent another 7.4 percent increase between 2028 and 2042. This combined 14 percent increase in boardings between 2017 to 2042 from demographic growth compares to the California Department of Finance projection of 9 percent in Los Angeles County and 16 percent in the Southern California region in the same timeframe. The assumed added (cumulative) transit investments, including several large transit projects, result in 1,729,135 transit trips, representing a 24 percent increase between 2017 and 2042. These assumed additional transit investments are the largest contributor to the transit trip increases.

The stepwise evaluation of Metro boardings begins with 1,293,084 (existing) regional boardings in 2017. Again, the demographic growth in population and employment results in boardings that increase 15 percent between 2017 and 2042 to 1,487,484 boardings. The assumed added transit investments, including several large transit projects, result in 2,176,651 boardings that represent a 46 percent increase between 2017 and 2042. This percent increase for the cumulative effects of the additional transit investments are higher for boardings than for trips because more transit riders are transferring in 2042 than in 2017 as a result of these new services.

The stepwise evaluation results in 6,488 project boardings if the project were available in 2017. These project boardings increase by an additional 10,389 project boardings in 2028 based on demographic growth. These project boardings further increase by 3,541 project boardings in 2042 with the full set of funded transportation investments included in the 2042 base assumptions.

Page 186