Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report APPENDIX II

Transcription

1 Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report APPENDIX II TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM State Clearinghouse Number:

2

3 Travel Demand Modeling Technical Memorandum July 3, 2014 Prepared for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA State Clearinghouse Number:

4 This technical memorandum was prepared by: AECOM 515 South Flower Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA /16/2012

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0. Introduction Study Background Alternatives Considered No Build Alternative Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative SR 60 LRT Alternative Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Travel Demand Model Methodology Traffic Analysis Zone System Socioeconomic Data Trip Generation and Distribution Highway Networks Transit Networks Travel Times Highway Travel Times Off- Highway Travel Times Transit Travel Times Mode Choice Overview Highway Assignment Transit Assignment Model Validation Travel Demand Model Results Linked Transit Trips Unlinked Transit Trips Station Boardings Project Boardings and Transportation System User Benefits Congestion Relief Summary and Conclusions...34 FIGURES Figure 2-1: No Build Alternative... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2-2: TSM Alternative... 4 Figure 2-3: SR 60 LRT Alternative... 5 Figure 3-1: Metro Multimodal Model Zone System... 9 Figure 3-2: Year 2035 Highway Network Figure 3-3: Sample Highway/Transit Speed Function Figure 3-4: Mode Choice Nesting Structure TABLES 7/16/2012 Page i

6 Table 3-1: 2006 Socioeconomic Data... 9 Table 3-2: 2035 Socioeconomic Data Table 3-3: Socioeconomic Change 2006 to Table 3-4: 2006 and 2035 Regional Person Trips by Purpose Table 3-5: Transit Companies in the Metro Model Table 3-6: Mode Specific Constants (express as equivalent minutes of modal preference as compared to local bus) Table 4-1: Los Angeles County 2035 Transit Performance Measures by Project Alternative Table 4-2: 2035 System-wide Unlinked Transit Trips Table 4-3: 2035 Average Weekday Station Boardings and Times SR 60 LRT Alternative Table 4-4: 2035 Average Weekday Station Boardings and Times Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Table 4-5: 2035 Average Weekday Station Mode of Access/Egress SR 60 LRT Alternative Table 4-6: 2035 Average Weekday Station Mode of Access/Egress Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Table 4-7: 2035 Average Weekday Project Boardings and User Benefits - Build Alternatives.. 32 Table 4-8: 2035 Average Weekday Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Table 5-1: 2035 Key Ridership and User Benefits Results - Build Alternatives /16/2012 Page ii

7 ABBREVIATIONS / ACRONYMS E a s t s i d e T r a n s i t C o r r i d o r P h a s e 2 AA... Alternatives Analysis AVTA... Antelope Valley Transit Authority BRT... Bus Rapid Transit CBD... Central Business District CEI... Cost Effectiveness Index CRT... Commuter Rail Transit DEIS/DEIR... Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report EMU... Electric Multiple Unit FRA... Federal Railroad Administration FTA... Federal Transit Administration HBO... Home-Based Other HBOPK... Home-Based Other: HBOOP... Home-Based Other: Off- HBW... Home-Based Work HBWPK... Home-Based Work: HBWOP... Home-Based Work: Off- HBU... Home-Based University HBUPK... Home Based University: HBUOP... Home Based University: Off HOV... High-Occupancy Vehicle KNR... Kiss-and-Ride LADOT... Los Angeles Department of Transportation LAUS... Los Angeles Union Station LAX... Los Angeles International Airport LRT... Light Rail Transit LRTP... Long Range Transportation Plan MAX... Modesto Area Express Metro... Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority MPH... Miles per Hour NEPA/CEQA... National Environmental Policy Act/California Environmental Quality Act NHB... Non-Home Based NHBPK... Non-Home Based: NHBOP... Non-Home Based: Off- O&M... Operations & Maintenance OCTA... Orange County Transportation Authority OP... Off- PNR... Park-and-Ride RCTC... Riverside County Transportation Commission ROW... Right-of-Way RTC... Regional Transit Center SANBAG... San Bernardino Associated Governments SCAG... Southern California Association of Governments SOV... Single-Occupancy Vehicle SPR... Self-Propelled Railcar 7/16/2012 Page iii

8 TAZ... Traffic Analysis Zone TSM... Transportation Systems Management TSUB... Transportation System User Benefits VMT... Vehicle Miles Traveled E a s t s i d e T r a n s i t C o r r i d o r P h a s e 2 7/16/2012 Page iv

9 1.0. INTRODUCTION E a s t s i d e T r a n s i t C o r r i d o r P h a s e 2 This report includes detailed descriptions of the alternatives, the modeling methodology employed in this assessment, and ridership and user benefit results for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR). Following this introduction, the report is arranged in the following sections: Alternatives Modeled; Travel Demand Model Methodology; Travel Demand Model Results; Summary and Conclusions; Appendices Study Background The Southern California region is faced with increasing mobility challenges due in part to historic and projected future population growth. The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project area is one area within the region particularly affected by this problem. Currently, residents throughout the corridor encounter long travel delays as they travel to regional employment centers in downtown Los Angeles and beyond. Studies of major rail transit infrastructure investments on the Eastside date back to the 1980 s, and loose plans for a major east-west backbone route through Los Angeles County date from decades prior. The first major action for the project area was the Metro Gold Line to East Los Angeles, which was completed and opened for operations in 2009; the line s last stop is at the Atlantic Station on the northwest corner of the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project area. 7/16/2012 Page 1

10 2.0. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED E a s t s i d e T r a n s i t C o r r i d o r P h a s e 2 An Alternatives Analysis (AA) process was conducted to identify, develop and screen potential transportation alternatives to address the project s propose and need, goals and objectives within the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project area. The alternatives assessed in this technical report emerged from this process, and are described below No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative is used for comparison purposes to assess the relative benefits and impacts of constructing a new transit project in the project area versus implementing only currently planned and funded projects. The No Build Alternative is also a required alternative for comparison as part of the National Environmental Policy Act/California Environmental Quality Act (NEPA/CEQA) environmental analysis. The No Build Alternative has been carried into the DEIS/DEIR phase of project development regardless of its performance versus the build alternatives still under consideration. The No Build Alternative is illustrated in Figure 2-1. Source: prepared by AECOM Figure 2-1.: No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative, as defined by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), represents the baseline case and consists of existing and committed elements of the region's transportation plan, excluding the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Extension project. Consequently, the No Build Alternative is focused on preservation of existing services. The No Build Alternative does not include any major service improvements or new transportation infrastructure beyond what is identified in Metro s 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). 7/16/2012 Page 2

11 By the projection year of 2035, the Metro Expo Line to Santa Monica, the Airport Metro Connector and the South Bay Metro Green Line Extension, the Metro Crenshaw Line, the Metro Purple Line to Westwood, and the Metro Gold Line to Azusa will have opened and bus services will have been reorganized and expanded to provide connections with these new rail lines. The plan also includes construction of the Regional Connector that will connect existing lines through downtown Los Angeles. After construction of the Regional Connector, operations of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension will be modified to operate trains from the Atlantic Station thru downtown to Santa Monica. Otherwise, the transit network within the project area would be largely the same as it is now except for potential improvements to frequency of service. 2.2 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative is intended to address the same mobility needs as the two LRT "build alternatives", but does not include the construction of a fixed guideway facility. The TSM Alternative includes all of the transit and roadway provisions of the No Build Alternative, plus proposed enhancements to existing bus service. The TSM Alternative is presented in Figure 2-2. In summary, key elements of the future baseline include: North-South Feeder Services Upgrade M30 Garfield Avenue bus to Rapid service Upgrade M20 Montebello Boulevard bus to Limited Stop service with higher service levels Add service to Metro 265 and Metro 266 local buses along Rosemead Boulevard and Paramount Boulevard Add service to Metro 370 limited stop on Peck Road and Workman Mill Road Add service to Foothill 274 on Workman Mill Road East-West TSM Services Provide new Pomona Freeway Express connecting to the Phase 1 terminus at Atlantic Station Provide new M40 Beverly Boulevard Rapid bus service Add service to M10 Whittier Boulevard bus Add service to M50 Washington Boulevard bus 7/16/2012 Page 3

12 Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 T ra v el De ma nd Mo d eli n g T e c h ni ca l Me m ora nd u m Source: prepared by AECOM 2011 Figure 2-2.: TSM Alternative 2.3 SR 60 LRT Alternative The SR 60 LRT Alternative would extend the Metro Gold Line to East Los Angeles approximately 6.9 miles east to Peck Road, with more than 94 percent of this alternative operating in an aerial configuration and primarily within the southern SR 60 Freeway right-of-way (ROW). Four stations would be provided with this alternative (all aerial), each with a park and ride facility: Garfield Avenue Shops at Montebello Santa Anita Avenue Peck Road Figure 2-3 illustrates the SR 60 LRT Alternative. 7/16/2012 Page 4

13 Source: prepared by AECOM Figure : : Build Alternatives The proposed alignment would extend at-grade east from the Metro Gold Line Atlantic Station in the median of Pomona Boulevard, where the alignment would transition to an independent aerial structure within the south side of the SR 60 Freeway right- of-way to Garfield Avenue. The SR 60 LRT Alternative would continue east beyond Garfield Avenue in the freeway right-of-way, terminating in the vicinity of the SR 60/Peck Road interchange in the city of South El Monte, with tail tracks for storage extending farther east. Traction power substations, track crossovers, emergency generators, and other ancillary facilities that provide power and help to operate the LRT would also be constructed along the route. The SR 60 LRT Alternative also includes all No Build Alternative transit and roadway assumptions and TSM Alternative assumptions related to bus system enhancements (with the exception of the Pomona Freeway Flyer). 2.4 Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would extend the Metro Gold Line to East Los Angeles approximately 9.4 miles east to the city of Whittier at Lambert Road. This alternative is proposed to operate in an aerial configuration with columns located in the median or sidewalks as well as in atgrade configuration where the street widths are sufficient to accommodate the alignment and potential stations. Six stations are proposed with this alternative (a combination of aerial and atgrade) with park and ride facilities provided except at the Whittier Boulevard station: Garfield Avenue Whittier Boulevard 7/16/2012 Page 5

14 Greenwood Avenue Rosemead Boulevard Norwalk Boulevard Lambert Road Figure 2-3 above displays the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative. The proposed alignment would extend at-grade east from the Metro Gold Line to East Los Angeles Atlantic Station in the median of Pomona Boulevard, where it would then transition to aerial operations running in the south side of the SR 60 Freeway right-of-way until Garfield Avenue. At Garfield Avenue, the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would turn south in an aerial configuration to operate above Garfield Avenue. The aerial structure would continue south on Garfield Avenue and then turn southeast along Washington Boulevard. The aerial structure would be supported at various locations either by columns straddling both sides of the street or by single columns. At Montebello Boulevard along Washington Boulevard, the alignment would transition to a street running configuration within the center of Washington Boulevard to a terminus station located south of Washington Boulevard just west of Lambert Road with tail tracks for storage extending south and adjacent to Lambert Road. The street running segment would be within a dedicated trackway located in the center of Washington Boulevard with only signalized intersections allowing for cross traffic. Signalized intersections would include crossing gates, bells, and flashing warning signs with pre-emption provided to the LRT. Two locations are currently under review for possible aerial grade separations based on environmental and engineering constraints: Rosemead Boulevard and the I-605 crossings. Traction power substations, track crossovers, emergency generators, and other ancillary facilities would be located along the alignment. The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative also includes all No Build Alternative transit and roadway assumptions and TSM Alternative assumptions related to bus system enhancements. There are a few differences in transit assumptions further in this report. 7/16/2012 Page 6

15 3.0 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL METHODOLOGY The ridership and mobility benefit forecasts for the Eastside Transit Corridor Project are based on the latest version of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Transportation Analysis Model (2012RTP and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) s 2012 model which supports the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable communities Strategy (SCS). The Metro Transportation Analysis Model, like nearly all transit forecasting models, uses assumptions regarding regional socioeconomic and transportation network characteristics to develop estimates of the amount of travel (i.e., trips) occurring between different locations in the area, the market share of each transportation mode, and the routing of these trips over the highway and transit networks. The results of this process include trips by mode and by facility including usage of individual transit routes or stations (ridership). These procedures also develop estimates of travel time savings and other Transportation System User Benefits which are a key component of the Federal evaluation of potential transit projects. This process is repeated for every combination of origin and destination location in the metropolitan area. In order to maintain a tractable modeling process, locations in the model are aggregated into a series of Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) which are the fundamental geographic unit of analysis for the entire process. The model, itself, is a form of the conventional four-step model used for transportation analysis throughout the United States. Key steps of the model include: Trip generation. This step estimates the number of trips produced in and attracted to each TAZ based on zonal socioeconomic variables such as population, households, and employment. The trip generation step estimates the amount of travel beginning and ending in each production (home) and attraction (non-home) TAZ for Home-Based Work, Home-Based University, Home-Based Other, and Non-Home Based trips. Trip generation rates are based on procedures developed by the Southern California Association of Governments. Trip distribution. A computerized network representation of the highway system is used to estimate the time and cost associated with travel between each pair of zones and these estimates are combined with trip generation results to develop a matrix (known as a trip table ) of travel between each production and each attraction zone in the region. Both the zone-to-zone travel times (known as skims ) and the trip tables are organized as very large matrices that have one row for each production zone and one column for each attraction zone. Each cell in these matrices contains an estimate of the time or number of trips beginning at a given production zone and ending at a given attraction zone. Each skim table or trip table contains over 9 million values representing each combination of production and attraction zone. Mode Choice. Following trip distribution, the skim matrices for each mode of travel (drive alone, HOV, and various transit options) are used to characterize the quality of each transportation option and to estimate the market share that each mode would attract. This step is known as Mode Choice. In addition to generating trip tables for each mode of travel, this step generates estimates of the number of linked trips (i.e., from origin to destination, 7/16/2012 Page 7

16 independent of transfers) attracted to each mode and an estimate of the aggregate time savings and other benefits that are associated with different transportation improvements. Assignment. Finally, network processing software is used to determine the best path or routing that each highway and transit trip will use to travel between the trip origin and destination. This step is known as Assignment and ridership results such as boardings by station or route are determined from the results of this element of the model. The remainder of this section describes each aspect of the modeling approach in more detail. 3.1 Traffic Analysis Zone System The system of zones applied in the Metro Transportation Analysis Model is designed to support an understanding of all travel occurring to, from and within Los Angeles County. Within the model, all travel is represented beginning at the trip origin (e.g., home) and ending at the trip destination (e.g., workplace or shopping location). This approach requires a broad regional geographic system that encompasses the key travel markets to, from, and within Los Angeles County including Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties. The zone system includes approximately 3,000 zones. A depiction of the zone structure is provided in Figure 3.1 as gray boundary lines. The Metro District system is depicted in red. For reporting purposes in this document (for example see Table 3.1), some districts have been grouped together, and these groups are shown by the colored shading. 3.2 Socioeconomic Data Data on existing and projected socioeconomic characteristics are major inputs to the travel demand model. The socioeconomic data include population, employment, and household information and are aggregated by TAZ. Base year (2006) data and forecast year (2035) projections were obtained from the SCAG using the April 2008 series of forecasts that cover the period ending in the Year These forecasts were developed for individual SCAG zones and converted to Metro Zones based on Census estimates of population by Census Block within each Metro TAZ. Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 show 2006 and 2035 population, employment, and households by income level summarized to the district level of detail. Table 3.3 shows the percent change from 2006 to 2035 for each demographic data set. Riverside County is expected to lead the region in growth in population and employment (97 percent and 85 percent, respectively). The Eastside area is expected to increase in population by 14 percent and in employment by 10 percent. 7/16/2012 Page 8

17 Source: AECOM 2010; 2010 Metro Travel Figure 3-1.: 3 Metro Multimodal Demand Model. Model Zone System District Population Table : : 2006 Socioeconomic Data Workers Retail Employment Employment Low Income Households Medium Income Households High Income Households 1 LA CBD 21,115 5,067 10, ,588 5,686 1,338 1,125 2 LA Central 1,699, , , , , , ,815 3 Eastside 1,452, , , , , , ,576 4 Gateway 1,912, , , , , , ,594 5 Other LA 4,925,463 2,236, ,617 2,290, , , ,673 6 Orange 2,980,624 1,436, ,505 1,581, , , ,695 7 Riverside 1,789, , , , , , ,535 8 San Bernardino 1,860, , , , , , ,339 9 Ventura 796, ,647 61, ,598 44,925 65, ,982 17,437,191 7,551,873 1,346,936 7,896,942 1,547,142 1,542,389 2,624,334 Source: SCAG, April /16/2012 Page 9

18 Table : 2035 Socioeconomic Data District Population Workers Medium High Retail Low Income Income Income Employment Employment Households Households Households 1 LA CBD 15,739 5,222 6, ,273 6,584 1,392 2,140 2 LA Central 1,912, ,027 65, , , , ,943 3 Eastside 1,660, ,064 67, , , , ,386 4 Gateway 2,153, ,577 86, , , , ,579 5 Other LA 6,361,425 2,757, ,055 2,664, , ,881 1,113,811 6 Orange 3,599,594 1,767, ,369 1,981, , , ,127 7 Riverside 3,516,730 1,345, ,465 1,413, , , ,932 8 San Bernardino 3,051,246 1,181, ,789 1,254, , , ,546 9 Ventura 995, ,642 50, ,227 55,447 70, ,106 23,267,518 9,705,765 1,102,898 10,151,394 2,050,468 1,869,991 3,685,570 Source: SCAG, April 2008 District Population Table : Socioeconomic Change 2006 to 2035 Workers Retail Employment Employment Low Income Households Medium Income Households High Income Households 1 LA CBD -25% 3% -40% 13% 16% 4% 90% 2 LA Central 13% 7% -35% -3% 24% 23% 17% 3 Eastside 14% 10% -32% 5% 14% 5% 17% 4 Gateway 13% 9% -27% -1% 6% 4% 19% 5 Other LA 29% 23% -33% 16% 29% 11% 35% 6 Orange 21% 23% -35% 25% 12% 1% 23% 7 Riverside 97% 85% 62% 126% 96% 74% 109% 8 San Bernardino 64% 58% 15% 83% 56% 55% 82% 9 Ventura 25% 20% -18% 29% 23% 8% 37% 33% 29% -18% 29% 33% 21% 40% Source: SCAG, April Trip Generation and Distribution Trip tables contain information on the number of trips produced in and attracted to each zone-to-zone interchange in the modeling area. These tables are structured as large matrices where each row represents a production zone (the home end of a trip) and each column represents an attraction zone (the non-home end of a trip). Each cell represents the number of trips traveling between a particular production zone and a particular attraction zone. The Metro Transportation Analysis Model stratifies travel by the underlying purpose of the trip and time of travel. These stratifications include: Home-Based Work: and Off- (HBWPK, HBWOP) 7/16/2012 Page 10

19 Home-Based Other: and Off-(HBOPK, HBOOP) Non-Home Based: and Off- (NHBPK, NHBOP) Home Based University: and Off (HBUPK, HBUOP) E a s t s i d e T r a n s i t C o r r i d o r P h a s e 2 Trip tables for the Metro Transportation Analysis Model were obtained from the model set developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and converted to the Metro zone system. This conversion is based on the relative number of trips produced in or attracted to each Metro zone as estimated using the SCAG trip generation model and Metro zone-based socioeconomic data described in Section 3.2. A summary of the person trip tables for 2006 and 2035 are presented in Table 3.4. The trip tables show that regional travel between the 2006 and 2035 is expected to grow by 30 percent with higher than average growth occurring for Home-Based Work trips and University travel. Table : : 2006 and 2035 Regional Person Trips by Purpose Trip Purpose Year 2006 Weekday Person Trips Year 2035 Weekday Person Trips 2006 to 2035 Growth Home-Based Work 9,673,809 14,311,876 48% Home-Based University 1,776,672 2,420,201 36% Home-Based Other 28,644,692 37,783,883 32% Non-Home Based 18,892,198 22,020,031 17% 58,987,371 76,535,991 30% Source: AECOM 2010; 2010 Metro Travel Demand Model. 3.4 Highway Networks Highway networks for 2006 and 2035 are based on the SCAG highway networks developed for the RTP/SCS. These networks are similar to the networks used by all agencies responsible for modeling in Southern California (SCAG, Metro, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Caltrans). The only significant difference is that Metro uses a utility program to generate connector links between each of the Metro zone centroids and the roadway network. The network, shown in Figure 3.2, includes estimates of peak and off-peak link speeds which were obtained from Caltrans and local municipalities. These speeds are used as part of the network processing procedures described in Section /16/2012 Page 11

20 Source: AECOM 2010; 2010 Metro Travel Demand Model. Figure Figure : : Year 2035 Highway Network 3.5 Transit Networks Transit Networks for the year 2006 and 2035 are maintained by Metro and represent all bus and rail public transit services operating in Los Angeles County and neighboring jurisdictions. Coded services include: Metrolink Commuter Rail Metro Rail Metro Bus operations including Local, Rapid, Express and Transitway services Municipal Bus operations 7/16/2012 Page 12

21 Transit services are divided into modes defined as follows: Local Bus Express Bus Rapid Bus Transitway Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Commuter Rail Urban Rail E a s t s i d e T r a n s i t C o r r i d o r P h a s e 2 Table 3.5 shows the list of transit companies operating in the modeled area by each type of transit service. 7/16/2012 Page 13 Table : Transit Companies in the Metro Model Mode Companies Service Type 10 Metrolink Commuter Rail 11 Metro Local Bus Local Bus 12 Metro Express Bus Express Bus 13 Metro Rail (Red, Blue, Green, Gold) Urban Rail 14 Commerce Municipal, Inglewood, Santa Fe Springs Local Bus 15 Whittier, Azusa, Bellflower, Cerritos, Duarte, El Monte, Glendale, Monterey Park, W Hollywood, LA DOT, West Covina, Shuttle Local Bus 16 Norwalk Transit, Long Beach Transit, Carson Circuit, Gardena Municipal, Santa Clarita Local Bus 17 Torrance Transit, Santa Monica, Culver City Bus, MAX Local Bus 18 Foothill Transit, Montebello Bus Lines, AVTA Local Bus 19 South Coast Area Transit, Moorpark, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley Local Bus 20 OCTA, OMNITRANS, Riverside Transit Agency Local Bus 21 Santa Monica, Gardena Municipal, Santa Clarita, Torrence Transit, AVTA, LADOT Express Bus 22 MAX, Foothill Transit Express Bus 23 Vista, Inland Empire Connection, OCTA, OMNITRANS, Simi Valley Express Bus 24 Metro Rapid Bus 25 Metro Transitway Bus 26 Orange Rail Urban Rail Source: Metro Transit access was estimated using Metro s INET-2-TNET application. This application is a set of awk programming language scripts and UNIX shell utilities. Transit access from a zone to a bus stop or a rail station is a function of the straight line (Cartesian) distance between them. This

22 distance is a parameter that can be controlled to get longer/shorter walk links. The resulting access links were adjusted by a circuity factor to adjust the impedances to account for the difference between the actual network distance and the straight line distance between a zone and a transit stop Travel Times This section describes the procedures used to generate travel time matrices containing the zoneto-zone travel times for each mode of travel Highway Travel Times travel times for single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) trips were determined by assigning an initial peak period vehicle trip table onto the highway network and using the resulting volumes to determine congested speeds on each link. A shortest path procedure is used to determine the fastest route between each origin and destination and the resulting travel times are recorded in a skim matrix. This process is performed three times: first for all network links except HOV-only; second for all links including HOV-2, but not HOV-3 links; and third for all links. The first set of results is used to depict travel times for drive-alone trips. The second set represents travel times for HOV-2 users and the third for HOV-3 users Off- Highway Travel Times Off-peak highway travel times for each link are based on coded values of time developed by Caltrans and the municipalities. Zone to zone times are estimated using path-finding and skimming procedures similar to those used for the peak networks Transit Travel Times Transit running times for fixed guideway modes (i.e., rail modes) are directly specified based scheduled or anticipated station-to-station travel times. Running times for bus services operating in mixed traffic are based on a simple function that relates transit travel times to the highway travel time on the corresponding link in the highway network as shown in Figure 3.3. As can be seen from Figure 3.3, transit speed is a linear function of highway speed until (X1, Y1) and (X2, Y2) and beyond that is constant. 7/16/2012 Page 14

23 Y Transit Speed Y2 Y1 X1 Auto Speed X2 X Source: INET Documentation Figure : : Sample Highway/Transit Speed Function 3.6 Mode Choice Overview The heart of the ridership forecasting process is the mode choice model. This process is designed to subdivide the person trip tables from the trip distribution model into separate trip tables for each travel mode. The share attracted to each mode is based on the travel characteristics of competing highway and transit services, socio-economic characteristics of the production and attraction TAZs, and parameters that define the relative importance of each factor. The proportion of trips selecting each mode is estimated using a logit function that relates the probability of selecting a mode to the relative utility of that mode compared to that of all other modes. The form of this function is as follows: 7/16/2012 Page 15

24 where: [U e = e g,i ( x )] P g,i [U ( x )] g,m g,i g,m Pg,i is the probability of a traveler from group g choosing mode i; xg,i are the attributes of mode i that describe its attractiveness to group g; and Ug,m(xg,m) is the utility (or attractiveness) of mode m for travelers in group g. The Metro Transportation Analysis Model is based on the nested logit form of this function which allows for sub-modal trade-offs to be more sensitive to service measures than higher level choices of the main modes. Separate models have been developed for each time period (peak and off-peak) and for each modeled purpose (described earlier). The choice set is depicted in Figure 3-4: Mode Choice Nesting Structure and includes 19 different potential transit paths: 1. Walk to Local Bus 2. Drive to Local Bus 3. Walk to Express Bus 4. Drive to Express Bus 5. Walk to Commuter Rail 6. Bus to Commuter Rail 7. Park-and-Ride to Commuter Rail 8. Kiss-and-Ride to Commuter Rail 9. Walk to Urban Rail 10. Bus to Urban Rail 11. Park-and-Ride to Urban Rail 12. Kiss-and-Ride to Urban Rail 13. Walk to Transitway 14. Drive To Transitway 15. Walk To Rapid Bus 16. Drive to Rapid Bus 17. Walk to BRT 18. Drive to BRT 19. Drive to BRT & Urban Rail In addition, each rail station and park-and-ride bus station is coded as a pseudo zone. The auto access path and impedance are generated by skimming the path from the origin zone to all pseudo zones. 7/16/2012 Page 16

25 Note: Model produces separate trip tables for Drive to Figure BRT and Drive to BRT and Urban Rail Source: PB Americas Figure : : Mode Choice Nesting Structure The relative attractiveness (or utility ) of each travel mode takes the following form: Ug,m( xg,m)=am+bmlosm+cg,mseg+dmtrip where: LOSm is a variable set describing levels-of-service by mode m; SEg is a variable set describing the socioeconomic characteristics of group g; TRIP is a variable set describing the characteristics of the trip; bm is vector of coefficients describing the importance of each LOSm variable; cg,m is vector of coefficients describing the importance of each SEg characteristic of group g with respect to mode m dm is vector of coefficients describing the importance of each TRIP characteristic of with respect to mode m, and am is a constant specific to mode m. Table 3.6 shows mode specific constants from the latest version of the model for each of the transit modes. They are expressed as equivalent minutes of modal preference compared with local bus. 7/16/2012 Page 17

26 Table : Mode Specific Constants (express as equivalent minutes of modal preference as compared to local bus) FINAL MODEL CALIBRATION Equivalent minutes HBWPK HBUPK HBOPK NHBPK HBWOP HBUOP HBOOP NHBOP Commuter Rail Alternative Specific Constant (21.42) (85.01) Urban Rail Alternative Specific Constant Express Bus Alternative Specific Constant (7.63) (21.78) (6.94) (44.18) (6.17) (14.36) Rapid Bus Alternative Specific Constant (39.22) (17.84) Transitway Alternative Specific Constant (4.68) 1.87 (20.10) 3.25 (14.14) (19.00) Los Angeles CBD Constant (All Modes) Source: PB Americas 3.7 Highway Assignment The output of the modal choice process includes work and non-work auto vehicle trips, which reflect the modal trade-offs among SOV, HOV, and various transit options. The vehicle trips are maintained separately in the mode choice model between SOV and HOV categories, based on the occupancy policy specified for the HOV facilities included (i.e., 2+ occupancy or 3+ occupancy restrictions). An equilibrium assignment process was applied that assigns the three vehicle trip tables to appropriate paths and links. During each iteration of the equilibrium assignment, the model loads SOV, HOV2 and HOV3+ trips. The assignment produced a "loaded" highway network that includes "constrained" times and speeds from the final assignment iteration as well as the initial input times and speeds. Times and speeds on both general-use and HOV facilities were included. 3.8 Transit Assignment The resulting loads were reported by link and mode using the standard TRANPLAN "Load Transit Network" module. It should be noted that these assignments were produced in production-attraction format, as is normal for transit analyses, rather than the origin-destination format more commonly used in highway assignments. 3.9 Model Validation The performance of the transit model was validated by PB Americas by comparing transit boardings from the observed boarding data for the calibration year of 2001 and by comparing district-to-district transit flows to data obtained from the regional on-board survey. Key findings from the validation summary provided by PB Americas are as follows: Estimated Metro Bus ridership across all bus modes is reasonable, within 13 percent of observed. Metro Local boardings appear to be reasonable, within 13 percent of observed. Metro Rapid bus boardings are reasonable - the estimated total is within 10 percent of observed. 7/16/2012 Page 18

27 Metro Express bus boardings are lower than observed (-62 percent) and Metro Transitway boardings are higher than observed (+135 percent). Urban rail ridership by line matches observed values to within plus or minus 10 percent and overall urban rail ridership is matched to within 3 percent. Metrolink ridership matches the observed total to within 3 percent. These model results suggest that the Metro Transportation Analysis Model has a reasonable understanding of the overall demand for transit. The model should be sufficient to support on-going rail planning given the understanding that there is a band of uncertainty of at least 20 percent around each result. It should be noted that nationwide experience with forecasting models suggest that 20 percent uncertainty is not unusual, even for forecasts to support projects in more advanced stages of development. 7/16/2012 Page 19

28 4.0 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL RESULTS An important measure in characterizing the efficiency and utility of a transit alternative is transit ridership. A transit alternative that attracts more new riders will do more to reduce highway and local street congestion and will improve the mobility of both the new and existing transit riders as well as the remaining highway users. Transit ridership covers a broad range of statistics that depict the ability of a project to attract riders and the ability of the bus and rail system to serve the traveling public. Key statistics include: Linked Transit Trips. A linked transit trip represents a traveler using one or more transit vehicles during the journey from trip origin to trip destination. A commuter driving to a train station and taking the train downtown counts as one linked transit trip. A traveler walking from home to a feeder bus who then transfers to another bus or train also counts as a single linked transit trip. This statistic is directly related to the system s ability to attract customers from the automobile and every new linked transit trip is one less automobile person trip. Another desirable aspect of this statistic is that it is unaffected by system changes that induce extra transfers which would increase other ridership measures (described below). The biggest disadvantage of linked transit trips is that it is intrinsically a system-wide statistic and cannot be related to the performance of a particular route or service. Estimates of linked transit trips are directly estimated by the mode choice model and therefore are directly related to market share. Unlinked Transit Trips (Boardings). Unlinked transit trips (also known as boardings) represent the number of times a traveler boards a new transit vehicle. With this statistic, a commuter driving to a train station and taking the train downtown counts as one unlinked transit trip. A traveler walking from home to a feeder bus who then transfers to another bus or train counts as a two unlinked transit trips. This statistic has the disadvantage that an alternative that adds an extra transfer adds an extra unlinked trip. This effect can result in cases where the inconvenience of the extra transfer can reduce the market share and linked trips while showing an increase in unlinked trips. The advantage of this statistic, however, is that can be measured at the route or station level and provides the most intuitive understanding of whether a project is able to attract ridership. Project Boardings. Project boardings are a subset of the unlinked transit trips statistic and represent those boardings making use of a new project. For a stand- alone fixed guideway system, project boardings are equal to the number of boardings forecast for that service. For projects that are extensions of a pre-existing service, boardings are equal to the number of boardings at each new station plus the number of travelers who are on-board the trains as they leave the last existing station and travel towards the first new station. Station Boardings. Station boardings are the number of boardings occurring at each station and can also show the modes of access and egress (e.g., walk, bus, park-and-ride or kiss-andride). This statistic provides information on the locations where the project is forecasted to attract demand. It is also useful in understanding the impacts that each station may have on the surrounding community. 7/16/2012 Page 20

29 Transportation System User Benefits. User Benefits is a system-wide measure of the benefits that are derived by travelers related to the implementation of the project. This statistic is expressed as person-hours of equivalent in-vehicle time savings when the project is compared to the TSM alternative. Although the key benefit of a new fixed guideway project is expected to be faster running times (i.e., in-vehicle time), fixed guideway projects may also include improved access, egress, frequencies and costs and all of these elements are embedded in the User Benefit measure. Congestion Relief. Congestion relief is the reduction in highway travel demand in the project study area expressed in the reduction of vehicle miles of traveled (VMT). It includes both auto and truck travel. As more people switch to transit, fewer vehicles are observed on the highway, thus reducing the overall regional VMT. This measure is computed by assigning the highway vehicle trip tables to the regional highway network and computing the degree to which VMT changes between alternatives. The remainder of this section documents the projected ridership estimates of each of the alternatives discussed in Chapter 3 according to these different statistics. 4.1 Linked Transit Trips Outputs of linked daily transit trips, daily fixed guideway boardings, daily bus boardings, and daily linked trips are all system-wide (throughout Los Angeles County) statistics. This includes all Metro buses and rail activity as well as municipal transit operation for transit statistics, and trip activity across all travel modes for daily linked trips. With over 1.7 million transit trips and nearly 80 million total trips projected daily in 2035, the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project Build Alternatives are only able to effect minimal change on the transportation system as a whole; therefore, these alternatives generate similar region-wide statistics when compared to one another. Table 4.1 provides a summary of countywide transit performance measures for all scenarios. Table : Los Angeles County 2035 Transit Performance Measures by Project Alternative Region-wide Statistics No Build Alternative TSM Alternative SR 60 LRT Alternative Washington LRT Alternative Daily Linked Fixed Guideway Trips* 590, , , ,036 Daily Linked Bus Trips** 1,135,826 1,139,966 1,137,346 1,136,234 Daily Linked Transit Trips 1,726,693 1,749,491 1,755,376 1,756,270 Daily Linked Trips ( All Modes) 76,567,648 76,567,648 76,567,648 76,567,648 Transit Mode Share 2.26% 2.28% 2.29% 2.29% Source: AECOM 2014; Metro Travel Demand Model RTP *Inclusive of Orange Line bus rapid transit trips **Exclusive of Orange Line trips 7/16/2012 Page 21

30 4.2 Unlinked Transit Trips E a s t s i d e T r a n s i t C o r r i d o r P h a s e 2 System-wide unlinked transit trips for the project alternatives are shown in Table 4.2. The TSM Alternative would increase countywide trips by approximately 50,000 trips compared to the No Build Alternative. The SR 60 LRT Alternative is expected to increase countywide transit trips by about 55,000 trips compared to the No Build Alternative; while the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative is expected to increase countywide transit trips by about 59,500 trips compared to the No Build Alternative. Table : : 2035 System-wide Unlinked Transit Trips Washington TSM SR 60 LRT No Build Boulevard LRT Alternative Alternative Alternative System-wide Unlinked Transit Trips 3,177,602 3,227,772 3,232,719 3,237,238 Source: AECOM 2010; 2010 Metro Travel Demand Model. 4.3 Station Boardings Station boardings for the SR 60 LRT Alternative and the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative are shown in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4. Mode of access/egress summaries for the SR 60 LRT Alternative and the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative are shown in Table 4.5 and Table /16/2012 Page 22

31 Phase 2 Phase 1 Table : : 2035 Average Weekday Station Boardings and Times SR 60 LRT Alternative Station Name Westbound (Read Down) Westbound Boardings Eastbound (Read Up) Eastbound Boardings Boardings Dist (mi) Time (min) Off- Daily Dist (mi) Time (min) Off- Daily Off- Daily ESide-SR-60/Peck Rd , , ,777 1,033 2,809 ESide-SR-60/Santa Anita , , ,057 ESide-SR-60/Paramount , , , ,200 ESide-SR-60/Garfield , , ,101 1, ,617 Subtotal ,466 2,226 6, , ,991 6,543 3,141 9,683 Gold-Pomona/Atlantic , , ,451 2,324 1,018 3,342 Gold-Third St./Mednick , ,631 Gold-Third St./Ford ,374 Gold-Third St./Indiana ,429 Gold-First St./Soto , ,518 Gold-First St./Boyle ,240 Gold-First St./Utah ,382 Subtotal ,797 2,371 7, ,145 1,602 4,747 7,942 3,972 11,914 RC: 1st/Central , ,586 RC: 2nd/Broadway , , ,091 RC: 2nd/Hope , ,008 1,157 3,164 2,755 1,860 4,615 Blue-7Th/Metro ,894 2,194 15, ,607 1,626 6,233 17,500 3,820 21,320 Blue-Pico , ,041 1, ,316 Expo-23rd St./Flower , , , ,720 3, ,604 Expo-Jefferson/Flower , ,557 1,629 1,016 2,645 Expo-Expo Park/USC , , ,267 1,830 1,071 2,901 Expo-Vermont Av./Exposition , , ,243 Expo-Western Av./Exposition , , ,243 Expo-Crenshaw Bl./ Exposition ,085 1,073 6, , ,827 7,153 1,832 8,984 Expo-Farmdale , ,578 Expo-La Brea Av./Exposition , , ,637 7/16/2012 Page 23

32 Table 4-3.: Average Weekday Station Boardings and Times SR 60 LRT Alternative (continued) Station Name Westbound (Read Down) Westbound Boardings Eastbound (Read Up) Eastbound Boardings Boardings Dist (mi) Time (min) Off- Daily Dist (mi) Time (min) Off- Daily Off- Daily Expo-La Cienega Bl./ Exposition , , ,290 Expo-Venice/Robertson , , ,345 3,370 1,283 4,652 Expo-National/Exposition , , , ,694 Expo-Westwood/Exposition , , ,212 2,762 1,309 4,071 Expo-Sepulveda/Exposition ,895 1,164 4, , ,796 4,039 1,816 5,855 Expo-Bundy Dr ,505 1,418 4, , ,109 4,861 2,171 7,032 Expo-Olympic/26th/ Cloverfield ,070 1,372 4, , ,159 4,418 2,183 6,601 Expo-Colorado/17th/15th/ Exposition ,664 1,536 5, ,507 4,592 2,115 6,707 Expo-4th St./Colorado Bl ,777 1,586 5, ,378 4,638 2,103 6,741 Subtotal ,779 18,006 69, ,723 11,893 35,616 75,502 29, , ,042 22,602 83, ,944 14,409 43,353 89,986 37, ,997 Source: AECOM 2013; Metro Travel Demand Model 2012 RTP. 7/16/2012 Page 24

33 Phase 2 Phase 1 Table : : 2035 Average Weekday Station Boardings and Times Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Station Name Westbound (Read Down) Westbound Boardings Eastbound (Read Up) Eastbound Boardings Boardings Dist (mi) Time (min) Off- Daily Dist (mi) Time (min) Off- Daily Off- Daily ESide2 LRT- Washington/Lambert , , ,235 1, ,796 ESide2 LRT-Washington/E. of Norwalk , , ,766 ESide2 LRT- Washington/Rosemead ,544 ESide2 LRT-Washington/So. Greenwood ,048 1, ,857 ESide2 LRT-Garfield/Whittier ,195 1, ,068 Eside2 LRT-SR-60/Garfield , , , ,422 Subtotal ,371 2,334 6, ,077 1,670 5,746 8,448 4,003 12,451 Gold-Pomona/Atlantic , , ,311 2, ,043 Gold-Third St./Mednick , ,648 Gold-Third St./Ford ,296 Gold-Third St./Indiana ,467 Gold-First St./Soto , ,549 Gold-First St./Boyle ,256 Gold-First St./Utah , ,786 Subtotal ,658 2,301 6, ,464 1,621 5,085 8,122 3,922 12,043 RC: 1st/Central , ,594 RC: 2nd/Broadway , ,032 1, ,196 RC: 2nd/Hope , ,012 1,165 3,177 2,807 1,870 4,676 Blue-7Th/Metro ,899 2,085 14, ,012 1,734 6,745 17,911 3,818 21,729 Blue-Pico , ,053 1, ,324 Expo-23rd St./Flower , , , ,733 3, ,502 Expo-Jefferson/Flower , ,575 1,627 1,024 2,651 Expo-Expo Park/USC , , ,273 1,801 1,072 2,873 7/16/2012 Page 25