Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) Task No

Home , Headway

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT Contract No. PS-4350-2000

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) Task No. 6.3.2 (Deliverable No. 6.3.2.F)

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

777 South Figueroa Street Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90017

Review Copy Date Initials Originator 1/11/2012 DK Checker 2/8/2012 CE Back checker 2/8/2012 DK Verified by 2/8/2012 GA

February 8, 2012

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1‐1

2.0 CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS ...... 2‐1

3.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS ...... 3‐1

4.0 CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS ...... 4‐1 4.1 Metro Architectural Design Criteria ...... 4‐1 4.2 TCRP Report 100 ...... 4‐1 4.3 Emergency Exiting Analysis ...... 4‐3

5.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY ...... 5‐1 5.1 Station Platform Capacity Calculations ...... 5‐1 5.1.1 Overall Station Platform Capacity Analysis ...... 5-1 5.1.2 Localized Station Platform Capacity Analysis ...... 5-2 5.2 Platform‐Concourse Vertical Circulation Capacity and Queuing Calculations ...... 5‐2 5.3 Concourse Capacity Calculations ...... 5‐3 5.4 Concourse‐Entrance Vertical Circulation Capacity and Queuing Calculations ...... 5‐5

6.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS ...... 6‐1 6.1 Station Platform Capacity Results ...... 6‐1 6.1.1 Overall Station Platform Capacity Analysis ...... 6-1 6.1.2 Localized Station Platform Capacity Analysis ...... 6-1 6.2 Platform and Concourse Vertical Circulation Capacity and Queuing Results ...... 6‐1 6.3 Concourse Capacity Results ...... 6‐1 6.4 Concourse‐Entrance Vertical Circulation Capacity and Queuing Results ...... 6‐6

List of Figures Figure 3‐1: 2035 Peak Hours On’s and Off’s – Century City Santa Monica Station and Century City Constellation Station ...... 3‐2 Figure 4‐1: Wilshire/La Brea Station Platform ...... 4‐4 Figure 4‐2: Wilshire/Fairfax Station Platform ...... 4‐5 Figure 4‐3: Wilshire/La Cienega Station Platform ...... 4‐6 Figure 4‐4: Westwood/UCLA Station Platform ...... 4‐7 Figure 5‐1: Century City Constellation Station Concourse ...... 5‐4

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page i

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) Table of Contents

List of Tables Table 3‐1: 2035 Peak Hour On’s and Off’s for Station Capacity Analysis ...... 3‐3 Table 6‐1: Station Platform Capacity ...... 6‐3 Table 6‐2: Platform‐Concourse Vertical Circulation Capacity and Queuing ...... 6‐4 Table 6‐3: Entrance/Concourse Vertical Circulation and Fare Gate Capacity ...... 6‐5 Table 6‐4: Concourse‐Entrance Vertical Circulation Capacity and Queuing ...... 6‐7

List of Appendices

APPENDIX A SUPPLEMENTAL LOCALIZED PLATFORM CAPACITY ANALYSIS AT THREE STATIONS .... A‐1

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page ii

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 1.0 – Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westside Subway Extension project (the Project). Phase 1 of the Project consisted of the Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study, including conceptual engineering. Phase 2 consisted of the preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR and Advanced Conceptual Engineering (ACE), leading to the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) with several options to study in the third phase. Phase 3 consists of the preparation of the Final EIS/EIR, additional ACE, and the start of Preliminary Engineering (PE) for the LPA.

The LPA included seven stations with two station site options each at Century City, Westwood/UCLA, and Westwood/VA Hospital. During the ACE design, studies provided recommendations for modifications to the station selection at the Westwood/UCLA and Westwood/VA Hospital sites. At Westwood/UCLA, permitting of a new building made the off‐street station option infeasible. At Westwood/VA Hospital, discussions with the stakeholders led to the southern alignment being advanced for the ACE submittal. The ACE submittal, issued on April 29, 2011, included drawings for seven station locations plus the single remaining alternative location for the Century City Station, as indicated below:

 Wilshire/La Brea

 Wilshire/ Fairfax

 Wilshire/La Cienega

 Wilshire/Rodeo

 Century City Constellation Station (plus Century City Santa Monica option)

 Westwood/UCLA

 Westwood/VA Hospital

The remaining eight station designs will progress during PE, which was authorized by FTA on January 4, 2011, and by Metro on January 14, 2011.

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 1‐1

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 2.0 – Contract Requirements

2.0 CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

Task 6.3.2 (Station Programs, Concepts, and Locations) of the Technical Scope of Services for the ACE and PE phases requires development and submittal of two reports dealing with station capacity: a station exiting report per NFPA 130, and a station capacity and circulation report. The exiting report deals with emergency conditions, and the station capacity report deals with normal operating conditions. This deliverable addresses the second requirement; the first report is being submitted under separate cover. The Technical Scope of Services does not contain a great deal of detail regarding the station capacity and circulation report. The Task 6.3.2 writeup says, “Indicate the projected passenger loadings to be accommodated in terms of ‘off’s’ and ‘on’s’ by peak and base period….” Task 5.1 (Project Basis of Design) provides additional guidance, indicating that station capacity shall consider “station circulation [and] minimum level of service” and that “TCRP 100 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual may be used as a reference.” This draft report has been prepared in response to these requirements.

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 2‐1

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 3.0 – Ridership Forecasts

3.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS

Two ridership forecasts for design year 2035 were provided to the PE design team by Parsons Brinckerhoff planning staff on June 1, 2011. Both versions are based on the Westwood/UCLA Station and the Westwood/VA Hospital Station, which correspond to the station sites on which the ACE drawing submittal (multiple Task 5 and 6 deliverables, submitted April 29, 2011) was based. The ACE submittal included drawings for the Century City Constellation Station, but also included drawings for the alternative Century City Santa Monica Station. The two ridership forecasts reflect the two Century City station site alternatives. Figure 3‐1 shows both ridership forecasts graphically in the form of “diamond diagrams.” Table 3‐1 shows peak‐hour on’s and off’s at each station on the Project in design year 2035. For each station, it uses the larger of the eastbound and westbound on’s and off’s contained in the two ridership forecasts. So, for example, for Wilshire/La Brea Station, the eastbound on’s, eastbound off’s, and westbound on’s come from the ridership forecast that includes the Century City Constellation Station. The westbound off’s come from the forecast that includes the Century City Santa Monica Station. Though the numbers do not differ greatly, this approach is slightly more conservative. The design team felt it was more appropriate to use this approach as the basis of the station capacity calculations so that station capacity could be verified no matter which of the two Century City station site alternatives is ultimately selected.

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 3‐1

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 3.0 – Ridership Forecasts

Figure 3‐1: 2035 Peak Hours On’s and Off’s – Century City Santa Monica Station and Century City Constellation Station

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 3‐2

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 3.0 – Ridership Forecasts

Table 3‐1: 2035 Peak Hour On’s and Off’s for Station Capacity Analysis

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 3‐3

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 4.0 – Criteria and Assumptions

4.0 CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS

The Metro Architectural Design Criteria contain certain requirements regarding station capacity during normal (non‐emergency) operations. In accordance with the Technical Scope of Work, the Transportation Research Board’s TCRP Report 100, Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd edition, was also used as a reference. In addition, applicable information from the emergency exiting analysis was used in the station capacity calculations for consistency. Metro Design Criteria were given priority over the other sources; TCRP Report 100 and the emergency exiting analysis were used only to supplement the Criteria. 4.1 Metro Architectural Design Criteria The Metro Design Criteria, Section 6 (Architectural), Paragraph 6.1.6 contains the following requirements:

 The minimum area (excluding elevator, escalator, stairway queuing space, and the 24‐inch platform safety edge strip) should accommodate the peak 15‐minute entraining load at 10 sf/person or the peak 15‐minute de‐training and entraining loads at 7 sf/person.

The design team interpreted the phrase “the peak 15‐minute entraining load” to mean one headway (4 minutes) worth of riders at the peak 15‐minute entraining load rate. Otherwise, the capacity required would be almost four times larger than normal, which would reflect severely perturbed operations.

It should be noted that there are no criteria for concourse capacity; passengers hpass throug the concourse on their way between the station entrances and the platform, and typically do not linger on the concourse.

Paragraph 6.14.3, of the Design Criteria prescribes the capacities of escalators and stairways as follows:

 Escalators (48‐inch nominal width) – capacity 35 people per minute (ppm) per exit lane in the up direction, 40 ppm per exit lane in the down direction

 Stairs – capacity 22 ppm per 22‐inch exit lane

As shown in Metro’s architectural directive drawing AD‐009, the standard Metro escalator has a clear tread width of 40”. TCRP Report 100 defines such an escalator as a double‐width escalator, so the design team assumes that this is equivalent to a two‐lane escalator. The standard Metro stairway as shown on the same drawing is 11 ft ‐ 8 inches wide with a center handrail (i.e., 6 lanes) at a four‐device entrance and 10 ft – 0 inches wide with a center handrail (i.e., 4 lanes) at a two‐device entrance. A single stair provides 5 ft ‐ 6 inches clear.

Table 6.3 (Metro Rail Stations, Minimum Queuing Distance Requirements, Suburban Stations) requires the following queuing distances: 15 feet at fare gates, 6 feet at ticket vending machines, 15 feet at two‐ device stairs/escalators, 25 feet at four‐device stairs/escalators, and 8 feet at elevators. 4.2 TCRP Report 100 TCRP Report 100 is written as a guide for designers to determine platform, concourse, and vertical circulation size based on required capacity, given the ridership forecasts. For the station capacity analysis, the design

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 4‐1

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 4.0 – Criteria and Assumptions

team worked backwards – that is, given the size of these facilities as determined by the architectural requirements, the design team calculated their capacity in order to determine if the existing Metro Red Line parameters were adequate.

For platforms, TCRP’s evaluation procedures involve taking the gross square footage and deducting unusable areas, consisting of:

 Walking areas allowing people to traverse the length of the platform even while others are waiting for their train. The design team assumed these to be two 44‐inch‐wide paths (consistent with NFPA 130, Section 5.5.6.3.1.1 and also wheelchair‐accessible) the length of the platform, one on each side of the center platform.

 Waiting area buffers adjacent to the platform edge and to waiting areas. For the platform edge buffer, TCRP Report 100 calls for deducting a 1.5‐foot strip the length of the platform, on each side of a center‐platform station. However, the Metro Design Criteria call for a 2‐foot platform edge strip, which is more conservative than TCRP Report 100. Since the Design Criteria govern, Metro’s requirement was used. For the waiting area buffer, the design team assumed that the 3‐foot‐wide walking path discussed in the previous bullet item satisfied this requirement and therefore did not deduct additional square footage.

 “Dead areas” between bus loading areas or train doors and space taken up by benches, columns, and other obstructions such as stairs and escalators, elevator shafts, trash receptacles, and map cases. Based on observation of how people use heavy rail transit platforms, the design team judged it unnecessary to deduct areas between train doors since people commonly do use them when waiting for a train. For a discussion of how the space taken up by obstructions was calculated, please refer to Section 4.3 below.

 Queue storage at all stairs, up escalators, and elevators. Queuing at down escalators is considered in the concourse vertical circulation capacity calculations but does not affect the platform capacity calculations. Queue storage is discussed further below.

The result of these calculations is the net square footage available for waiting.

TCRP Report 100, Part 7, Chapter 3, Exhibit 7‐8 defines levels of service (LOS) for passenger queuing and waiting areas in terms of ranges of average area per person. LOS ranges from A (free circulation possible without disturbing others) to F (virtually all people are standing in direct physical contact with others, no movement is possible). To quote from TCRP Report 100:

The LOS required for waiting within a facility is a function of the amount of time spent waiting, the number of people waiting, and a desired level of comfort. Typically, the longer the wait, the greater the space per person required. A person’s tolerance of a level of crowding will vary with time. People will accept being tightly packed on an elevator for 30 seconds, but not in a waiting area for 15 minutes.

The concept of LOS was taken from the Highway Capacity Manual but first applied by John J. Fruin to pedestrian planning in his seminal work “Pedestrian Planning and Design,” published by the Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners in 1971 and long out of print. The methodology and the LOS definitions in TCRP Report 100 are based on Fruin’s work. The figures of 10 ft2/person and 7 ft2/person referred to in Paragraph 6.1.6 of the Metro Design Criteria correspond to LOS B and C, respectively.

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 4‐2

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 4.0 – Criteria and Assumptions

TCRP Report 100 also provides LOS figures for walkways and stairways (Exhibits 7‐3 and 7‐7, respectively), again based on Fruin’s work. For walkways and stairways, LOS ranges from A (unconstrained, conflicts unlikely) to F (severely restricted, reverse movements virtually impossible, sporadic flow). The figure of 22 ppm per stairwayt exi lane referred to in Paragraph 6.14.3.D.2 of the Metro Design Criteria corresponds to LOS D. LOS D ranges from 10 to 13 ppm/ft, and 22 ppm/22 inches equals 12 ppm/ft. LOS D is defined as “Speeds restricted due to inability to pass slower‐moving pedestrians. Reverse flows cause significant conflicts.” Stairways constrain pedestrian flow more than walkways or escalators, so only stairway flows and queues are considered in the analysis presented in Sections 5.1, 5.3, and 5.4.

Finally, TCRP Report 100 provides guidance on fare gate capacities and analysis methodology. Exhibit 7‐ 24 lists types of entrances and ranges of pedestrian volumes per type. For card reader entrances like Metro’s, each fare gate can process between 25 and 40 ppm. TCRP Report 100 also notes that “Fare gates … are evaluated based on a design volume‐to‐capacity (v/c) ratio, rather than a design LOS. The selected v/c ratio should allow some room for growth in passenger flow.” 4.3 Emergency Exiting Analysis To represent the peak within the peak hour, the emergency exiting analysis has assumed a surge factor of 1.5 for entraining and detraining loads. The same assumption was made for the station capacity analysis.

For the emergency exiting analysis, the design team calculated the dead areas as defined in TCRP Report 100, i.e., net platform area not taken up by benches, trash receptacles, stair and escalator footprint, elevator shafts, columns, and map cases, also including in the calculation the platform edge strips (2 feet on each side of a center platform). The calculation was made for four cases: Wilshire/La Brea Station ,(Figure 4‐1) Wilshire/Fairfax Station (Figure 4‐2), Wilshire/La Cienega Station (Figure 4‐3), and Westwood/UCLA Station (Figure 4‐4). The Wilshire/La Brea Station calculation was assumed to apply to the other Module B, Module B1, and Module D stations until later in the design process when further information becomes available.

For consistency, the station capacity analysis used the same net platform areas derived for the emergency exiting analysis.

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 4‐3

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 4.0 – Criteria and Assumptions

Figure 4‐1: Wilshire/La Brea Station Platform

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 4‐4

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 4.0 – Criteria and Assumptions

Figure 4‐2: Wilshire/Fairfax Station Platform

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 4‐5

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 4.0 – Criteria and Assumptions

Figure 4‐3: Wilshire/La Cienega Station Platform

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 4‐6

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 4.0 – Criteria and Assumptions

Figure 4‐4: Westwood/UCLA Station Platform

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 4‐7

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 5.0 – Analytical Methodology

5.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY

The design team set up Microsoft Excel spreadsheets to analyze three cases: platform capacity, platform and concourse vertical circulation capacity and queuing, and entrance vertical circulation capacity and queuing. Concourse and entrance capacity were not studied per se because riders do not wait for trains there; while a few riders maye use thes areas to meet people, the vast majority simply pass through on their way to or from the platforms. Therefore there are typically not large numbers of people waiting in these areas. 5.1 Station Platform Capacity Calculations Gross square footage was calculated for each station by multiplying the 28‐foot width by the 450‐foot length to obtain 12,600 ft2.

Unusable areas as defined by TCRP Report 100 were calculated as follows:

 Walkways were calculated as described in Section 4.2.

 Regarding vertical circulation, queuing areas at stairways, escalators, and elevators were calculated based on the criteria in Section 4.1. Queuing areas at stairways and escalators were calculated in two ways, based on ridership and using the minimums from Metro Design Criteria Table 6.3, and the larger number was used in the calculations. Also, to be conservative, queuing areas were assumed at the base of each escalator, even though typically half the escalators are going up and half going down.

 Dead areas were calculated as described in Section 4.3.

 The buffer at the platform edge was calculated as described in Section 4.1; it is actually included in the dead area calculation so is shown in the accompanying tables as “not applicable.”

The unusable areas were subtotaled and the subtotal was subtracted from the gross square footage, resulting in net square footage available for waiting.

5.1.1 Overall Station Platform Capacity Analysis Platform capacities were calculated for LOS A through F by dividing the net square footage by the lower limit in the range indicated for that LOS. For example, LOS B provides 10 to 13 ft2 per person, so for LOS B, the net square footage was divided by 10. This number represents the maximum capacity of the platform at LOS B. Any lower divisor will not provide LOS B, but rather, a lower level of service.

The peak 15‐minute entraining load during one headway was calculated by adding eastbound and westbound on’s during the peak hour from the ridership forecasts shown in Section 3.0, multiplying by the surge factor of 1.5 discussed in Section 4.3, and dividing by 15 to represent the number of entraining passengers during one 4‐minute headway. In accordance with Metro Design Criteria Paragraph 6.1.6.D.2, these numbers were then compared to the platform capacity at LOS B (lower limit 10 ft2 per person).

In addition, the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining load during one headway was calculated by adding eastbound and westbound on’s and off’s during the peak hour from the ridership forecasts shown in Section 3.0, multiplying by the surge factor of 1.5 discussed in Section 4.3, and dividing by 15

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 5‐1

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 5.0 – Analytical Methodology

to represent the number of entraining plus detraining passengers during one 4‐minute headway. In accordance with Metro Design Criteria Paragraph 6.1.6.D.2, these numbers were then compared to the platform capacity at LOS C (lower limit 7 ft2 per person).

5.1.2 Localized Station Platform Capacity Analysis The station platform capacity analysis described in Section 5.1.1 looked at the platform as a whole during one headway. Based on the results of the analysis (presented in Section 6.1 below), the design team concluded that in most stations, there were unlikely to be capacity issues. However, since this analysis focused on overall capacity in the stations, it was inconclusive as to whether there might be some localized circulation or capacity issues at the three stations forecast to have the highest ridership volumes.

While a pedestrian simulation using Legion software can reveal circulation and capacity issues unforeseen by other types of analyses, the design team did not think it necessary to conduct simulations for these stations, judging that analysis of clearance time for VCEs should indicate the likelihood of any localized capacity issues.

The design team therefore carried out a more detailed spreadsheet‐based platform clearance analysis at the following three stations: Century City Constellation, Westwood/UCLA, and Westwood/VA Hospital. The methodology and results of this analysis are described in detail in A.A.1.1.1.1Appendix A but are summarized here.

The platform clearance analysis distributed passenger volumes on the platform after a train arrives (or trains arrive) to the available vertical circulation elements (VCEs) and exit routes, and calculated the amount of time required to clear the assigned volume at each VCE based on the capacity of the VCE.

5.2 Platform‐Concourse Vertical Circulation Capacity and Queuing Calculations Stairways, escalators, and elevators link the platform with the concourse. Stairway capacities were calculated by multiplying the number of 22‐inch exit lanes per stairway by the 22 ppm per exit lane figure from Section 4.1. Escalator capacities were calculated by multiplying the number of double‐width escalators by the 35m pp per lane (up escalators) or 40 ppm per late (down escalators) figures from Section 4.1, as appropriate.

The peak 15‐minute entraining (detraining) load during one headway was calculated by adding eastbound and westbound on’s (off’s) during the peak hour from the ridership forecasts shown in Table 3‐1, multiplying by the surge factor of 1.5 discussed in Section 4.3, and dividing by 15 to represent the number of entraining (detraining) passengers during one 4‐minute headway. The peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining load during one headway was calculated as described in Section 5‐1 above.

It should be noted that no modal split is available to forecast how many people use stairways versus escalators versus elevators. From empirical observation, the design team has concluded that a majority of riders use the escalators, but during peak periods a significant number of people use the stairs. To be conservative, the stairway calculations assumed that everyone uses the stairs and the escalator calculations assumed that everyone uses the escalators.

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 5‐2

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 5.0 – Analytical Methodology

For stairways, the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining load during one headway was subtracted from the calculated stairway capacity during one headway to determine if the load exceeded capacity and if queuing would be required either on the platform or concourse.

For escalators, the peak 15‐minute detraining load during one headway was subtracted from the calculated up escalator capacity during one headway to determine if the load exceeded capacity and if queuing would be required on the platform. The peak 15‐minute entraining load during one headway was subtracted from the calculated down escalator capacity during one headway to determine if the load exceeded capacity and if queuing would be required on the concourse.

Since the demand for elevators was not considered to be controlling, elevator capacity was not considered but queuing space for elevators was considered as discussed in Section 4.1. 5.3 Concourse Capacity Calculations Despite the lack of concourse capacity criteria, to verify that the concourse will not become a pedestrian choke point, data was compiled regarding the free and paid areas of all the station concourses, and the Century City Constellation Station concourse (Figure 5‐1) was analyzed as a test case.

For the free areas, the capacity of the vertical circulation between the concourse and surface during one headway (calculated as described in Section 5.2) was compared to the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining load during one headway (calculated as described in Section 5.1).

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 5‐3

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 5.0 – Analytical Methodology

Figure 5‐1: Century City Constellation Station Concourse

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 5‐4

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 5.0 – Analytical Methodology

The capacity of the fare gate array between the free area and the paid area was calculated using the minimum throughput value of 25 ppm per gate from TCRP Report 100, as described in Section 4.2. This capacity was also compared to the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining load during one headway, using the v/c ratio recommended by TCRP Report 100.

For the paid areas, the capacity of the vertical circulation between the concourse and platform during one headway (calculated as described in Section 5.2) was compared to the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining load during one headway.

Minimum queuing requirements (per Metro Design Criteria Table 6.3) in the free area at vertical circulation, TVMs, and fare gates were examined to verify that the free area was large enough to accommodate pedestrian flows between the stairway/escalator pairs and the fare gates even in the presence of queues at the TVMs and elevators.

Minimum queuing requirements (per Metro Design Criteria Table 6.3) in the paid area at vertical circulation and fare gates were examined to verify that the paid area was large enough to accommodate pedestrian flows between the stairway/escalator pairs and the fare gates even in the presence of queues eat th elevators.

For the test case, Century City Constellation Station, the areas of the columns and vertical circulation “footprint” was subtracted from the gross square footage of the free area to calculate net square footage. Net square footage was divided by the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining load during one headway to determine LOS within the free area. In addition, this passenger load was divided by the fare gate and vertical circulation capacity to determine the design volume‐to‐capacity ratio per TCRP Report 100 methodology.

Net square footage was calculated in the same way for the Century City Constellation Station paid area, then divided by the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining load during one headway to determine LOS within the paid area. In addition, this passenger load was divided by the fare gate and vertical circulation capacity to determine the design volume‐to‐capacity ratio per TCRP Report 100 methodology. 5.4 Concourse‐Entrance Vertical Circulation Capacity and Queuing Calculations Stairways, escalators, and elevators link the concourse with the entrances. Stairway and escalator capacities were calculated as described in Section 5.3.

The peak 15‐minute entraining (detraining) load during one headway was calculated as described in Section 5.3, and the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining load during one headway was calculated as described in Section 5.15‐1. Again, to be conservative, the stairway calculations assumed that everyone uses the stairs and the escalator calculations assumed that everyone uses the escalators.

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 5‐5

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 5.0 – Analytical Methodology

For escalators, the peak 15‐minute detraining load during one headway was subtracted from the calculated up escalator capacity during one headway to determine if the load exceeded capacity and if queuing would be required on the concourse. The peak 15‐minute entraining load during one headway was subtracted from the calculated down escalator capacity during one headway to determine if the load exceeded capacity and if queuing would be required at the entrances.

Since the demand for elevators was not considered to be controlling, elevator capacity was not considered but queuing space for elevators was considered as discussed in Section 4.1.

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 5‐6

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 6.0 – Results of Analysis

6.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 6‐1 through Table 6‐4. 6.1 Station Platform Capacity Results 6.1.1 Overall Station Platform Capacity Analysis As shown in Table 6‐1, at all stations, the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining loads during one headway at LOS C governed over (in other words, utilized more station capacity than) the peak 15‐ minute entraining loads during one headway at LOS B. Under these conditions, capacity utilization ranged from 11% at Wilshire/La Brea Station to 46% at Westwood/UCLA Station.

6.1.2 Localized Station Platform Capacity Analysis As shown in Table 2 in Appendix A, the spreadsheet‐based localized station platform capacity analysis concluded that within a 4‐minute (240‐second) headway, the clearance times for individual VCEs (stairs and up escalators) ranged from 25 to 75 seconds at Century City Constellation Station, from 10 to 86 seconds at Westwood/UCLA Station based on an assumed split of two‐thirds of the riders using the east entrance and one‐third using the west entrance, and from 10 to 72 seconds at Westwood/VA Hospital Station. These results indicated that sufficient capacity is provided to move passengers well in advance of the arrival of following trains, though the clearance times for escalators are rather high for this kind of system, with the longest being 75 seconds at Century City Constellation Station, 86 seconds at Westwood/UCLA Station, and 72 seconds at Westwood/VA Hospital Station.

A potential remedy for these clearance times would be to replace the stair next to the “front” escalator at each location with a third escalator, also to be operated on the up direction. One stair would remain at each location next to the down escalators. Alternatively, provisions could be made to add this third escalator at a future date das deman and queuing patterns dictate.

6.2 Platform and Concourse Vertical Circulation Capacity and Queuing Results As shown in Table 6‐2, at all stations, the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining loads during one headway were less than the capacity of the stairways linking the platform and concourse. Capacity utilization ranged from 18% at Wilshire/La Brea Station to 38% at Century City Constellation Station.

At all stations, the peak 15‐minute entraining loads during one headway were less than the capacity of the down escalators linking the concourse and platform. Capacity utilization ranged from 9% at Wilshire/Rodeo Station to 19% at Wilshire/Fairfax and Westwood/VA Hospital Stations. 6.3 Concourse Capacity Results As shown in Table 6‐3, at all stations the capacity of the vertical circulation between the entrance and the free area of the concourse during one headway was greater than the peak 15‐minute entraining plus

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 6‐1

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 6.0 – Results of Analysis

detraining load during one headway. At all stations except Westwood/UCLA, the vertical circulation capacity during one headway was 1128, while the largest entraining plus detraining load at these stations during one headway was 202 at Century City Constellation Station. At Westwood/UCLA Station, the vertical circulation capacity was 2296 and the entraining plus detraining load was 308.

Also as shown in Table 6‐3, at all stations the capacity of the fare gate array between the free area and the paid area during one headway was greater than the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining load during one headway. At all stations except Westwood/UCLA, the fare gate capacity during one headway was 700, while the largest entraining plus detraining load at these stations during one headway was 202 at Century City Constellation Station (v/c ratio of 0.29 per TCRP Report 100). At Westwood/UCLA Station, the fare gate capacity was 1400 and the entraining plus detraining load was 308 (v/c ratio of 0.22).

As shown in Table 6‐3, at all stations the capacity of the vertical circulation between the paid area of the concourse and the platform during one headway was greater than the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining load during one headway. At all stations except Westwood/UCLA, the vertical circulation capacity during one headway was 1128, while the largest entraining plus detraining load at these stations during one headway was 202 at Century City Constellation Station. At Westwood/UCLA Station, the vertical circulation capacity was 2296 and the entraining plus detraining load was 308.

As noted in Section 5.3, the Century City Constellation Station concourse was analyzed as a test case to verify that the free area was large enough to accommodate pedestrian flows between the stairway/escalator pairs and the fare gates even in the presence of queues at the TVMs and elevators, and that the fare gates would not become a pedestrian choke point. The 1128 ppm capacity of the vertical circulation during one headway was greater than the 700 ppm capacity of the fare gate array, but both were significantly greater than the peak entraining plus detraining load of 202, so the fare gate array would not constitute a choke point. In addition, the 3042 net square feet of the free area would accommodate this load at 15 ft2 per person (LOS B), and the 5504 net square feet of the paid area would accommodate this load at 27 ft2 per person (LOS A), both of which would provide excellent circulation.

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 6‐2

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 6.0 – Results of Analysis

Table 6‐1: Station Platform Capacity

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 6‐3

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 6.0 – Results of Analysis

Table 6‐2: Platform‐Concourse Vertical Circulation Capacity and Queuing

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 6‐4

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 6.0 – Results of Analysis

Table 6‐3: Entrance/Concourse Vertical Circulation and Fare Gate Capacity

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 6‐5

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 6.0 – Results of Analysis

6.4 Concourse‐Entrance Vertical Circulation Capacity and Queuing Results As shown in Table 6‐4, the peak 15‐minute entraining plus detraining loads during one headway were less than the capacity of the stairways linking the concourse and entrance(s). Utilization ranged from 18% at Wilshire/La Brea Station to 38% at Century City Constellation Station.

At all stations, the peak 15 ‐minute detraining loads during one headway were less than the capacity of the up escalators linking the platform and concourse. Capacity utilization ranged from 16% at Wilshire/La Brea Station to 83% at Westwood/UCLA Station; however, it should be noted that the situation at Westwood/UCLA Station is a special case. At this station there are two half portals at the east entrance, one south of Wilshire and one north of Wilshire. Each half portal has one stairway and one escalator. There is also a full portal at the west entrance, with two escalators. The design team assumed that at the half portals, both escalators would be running in the peak direction. Therefore, at that station only there would either be one up escalator and three down escalators or three up escalators and one down escalator. The 83% capacity usage occurred when only one up escalator is available (at the west entrance). Other than that special case, the maximum utilization is 53% at Century City Constellation Station.

The peak 15‐minute entraining loads during one headway were less than the capacity of the down escalators linking the concourse and platform. Capacity utilization ranged from 9% at Wilshire/Rodeo Station (and 8% at Westwood/UCLA Station with three down escalators available) to 19% at Wilshire/Fairfax Station and Westwood/VA Hospital Station (and 23% at Westwood/UCLA Station with only one down escalator available).

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 6‐6

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) 6.0 – Results of Analysis

Table 6‐4: Concourse‐Entrance Vertical Circulation Capacity and Queuing

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012 Page 6‐7

Station Capacity and Circulation Report (Final) Appendix A - Supplemental Localized Platform Capacity Analysis at Three Stations

APPENDIX A Supplemental Localized Platform Capacity Analysis at Three Stations

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT February 8, 2012

To: Gene Allen Gulzar Ahmed Diane Kravif

From: Mark Walker

Date: November 23, 2011 (revised 1/19/2012)

Subject: Capacity Analysis at Three Stations

This memorandum summarizes an analysis platform exiting capacity at three stations on the Westside Subway Extension Project. The three stations that are forecast to have the highest volumes are: the Westwood / VA Hospital station, the Westwood / UCLA station, and the Century City Constellation station.

A platform clearance analysis was undertaken to supplement analyses documented in the Draft Station Capacity and Circulation Report, dated June 6, 2011. A platform clearance analysis distributes volumes existing on a platform after a train arrives to the available exit routes, and calculates the amount of time required to clear the assigned volume at each element. At the stations in this study only stairs and escalators are considered, referred together as vertical circulation elements (VCEs). Elevators were omitted from the analysis because they don’t generally carry a significant portion of passengers.

The following inputs and assumptions were made in the analysis:

 AM peak hour passenger volumes at each station were taken from the Station Capacity and Circulation Report, Figure 3.1. The highest volumes for each station (with the Century City Constellation alternative) were used for the analysis.

 PM peak hour passenger volumes were estimated by “reversing” the AM peak hour forecast, so that AM ons become PM offs at each station. The resulting numbers indicate, however, the AM peak will be the critical period for alightings at these three stations, so the analysis was done only for the AM peak.

 A peak headway of 4.0 minutes or 15 trains per hour was assumed in each direction.

 Peak train volumes were obtained by dividing the peak hour volume by the number of trains and multiplying by a peaking factor of 1.5.

 As a reasonable worst case scenario, trains in both directions were assumed to arrive almost simultaneously on these center platform stations, except efor th end‐of‐line

Over a Century of A-1 Engineering Excellence

Westwood / VA hospital station, where trains only arrive from one directions. While trains will more often arrive at separate times, the simultaneous arrival of trains will occur frequently enough that the station should handle this occurrence.

 All escalators in the designs are “double width” with 40‐inch treads. These escalators are assumed to have a capacity of 72 people per minute operating at 90 feet per minute. (Note that increasing escalator speed to 100 fpm increases capacity to approximately 80 per minute.)

 All stairways in the designs provide 60 inches width between handrails. Such stairs provide two pedestrian lanes with a capacity of 36 people per minute per lane, or 72 people per minute total.

 At the Westwood / VA Hospital and Century City Constellation stations, which have two escalators. One escalator is assumed to be operating in the up direction and one in the down direction. At the Westwood UCLA station, which has four stairs and four escalators, two escalators are assumed to be operating in each direction. In each case, the escalator approached first from the mezzanine level is assumed to be operating down and the escalator approached first from the platform is assumed to be operating up.

Table 1, below, presents the calculation of the peak exit flow, which represents passengers exiting from one train in each direction at the same time.

Over a Century of A-2 Engineering Excellence

Table 1 Calculation of Peak Exiting Passengers

AM Peak Hour Riders Eastbound Westbound Station On Off On Off Westwood / VA Hospital 612 0 0 1239 Westwood / UCLA 580 218 169 2080 Century Constellation 328 187 193 1309

AM Peak Train Eastbound Westbound Station On Off On Off Westwood / VA Hospital 62 0 0 124 Westwood / UCLA 58 22 17 208 Century Constellation 33 19 20 131

Peak Exit Flow Station AM PM Westwood / VA Hospital 124 62 Westwood / UCLA 230 75 Century Constellation 150 53 Since each of these stations is designed with a single center island platform serving both tracks, and trains are assumed for the analysis to arrive simultaneously, the “peak exit flow” is the combined volume of the eastbound and westbound offs.

Table 2 presents the calculation of exiting time at each element at each station. The “platform clearance time” is the highest of any of the results for each platform. Note that actual clearance time after a train opens its doors is actually a bit longer than these calculated numbers to allow time for first passengers to reach VCEs and for the flow to reach full capacity on each VCE.

Over a Century of A-3 Engineering Excellence

Table 2 Calculation of Clearance Time

Westwood / VA Hospital Peak Exits: 124 Vertical Circulation Element Esc1 Stair1 Esc2 Stair2 Total Up Down Up Percent of Directional Volume 70.0% 10.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0% Per Train Volumes 87 12 0 25 124 Capacity per minute 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 288.0 Clearance Time per Train (seconds) 72 10 0 21 72 Ratio: Clearance Time / Train Interval 0.30 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.30

Westwood / UCLA Peak Exits: 230 Vertical Circulation Element Esc1 Stair1 Esc2 Stair2 Esc3 Stair3 Esc4 Stair4 Total Down Up Up Down Up Percent of Directional Volume 0.0% 8.0% 20.0% 5.0% 45.0% 7.0% 0.0% 15.0% 100.0% Per Train Volumes 0 18 46 12 104 16 0 35 230 Capacity per minute 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 576.0 Clearance Time per Train (seconds) 0 15 38 10 86 13 0 29 86 Ratio: Clearance Time / Train Interval 0.00 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.36 0.06 0.00 0.12 0.36

Century Constellation Peak Exits: 150 Vertical Circulation Element Esc1 Stair1 Esc2 Stair2 Total Up Down Up Percent of Directional Volume 60.0% 20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0% Per Train Volumes 90 30 0 30 150 Capacity per minute 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 288.0 Clearance Time per Train (seconds) 75 25 0 25 75 Ratio: Clearance Time / Train Interval 0.31 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.31 Stairs next to up escalators are generally assumed to take a smaller portion of exit volume than stairs next to escalators running down, as people who first reach those stairs have to walk further and pass the VCEs in order to access the up escalator.

At the Westwood station it is anticipated that the eastern end of the station will serve a greater portion of the demand than the western station entrance due to the position of the entrances relative to surrounding land uses. While no quantitative basis for this split is available, it was assumed that about 2/3 of the passengers would use the east entrance and 1/3 would use the west entrance.

Where stairs and escalators are side by side, about 10% of the volume was initially assumed to use the stair by preference. However, where escalator clearance (and thus queue) times were much greater, some people were moved from the escalator to the stair. The longer wait times at escalators represent preference for them and equal clearance times are rarely achieved.

The results indicate that, which sufficient capacity is provided to move passengers well in advance of the arrival of following trains (4 minutes), the clearance times for escalators are rather high for this kind of system, with the longest being 86 seconds at Westwood/UCLA, 75 seconds at Century City Constellation, and 72 seconds at Westwood/VA Hospital station.

A potential remedy for these clearance times would be to replace the stair next to the “front” escalator at each location with a third escalator, also to be operated on the up direction. One

Over a Century of A-4 Engineering Excellence

stair would remain at each location next to the down escalators. Alternatively, provision could be made to add this third escalator at a future date as demand and queuing patterns dictate.

Over a Century of A-5 Engineering Excellence