Transit Capacity & Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Station Capacity

Transit Capacity & Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition

Station Capacity


Presentation Overview

Learning objectivesStation types & configurationsPassenger circulation and level of serviceStation elements and their capacitiesExample problems


Learning Objectives

Understand the different types of transit stationsBe familiar with passenger circulation and level of service conceptsLearn about the range of station elements and methods of measuring their capacitiesConsider some typical station analysis problems


Changes in 3rd Edition

Significantly expanded discussion of passenger flow microsimulation Introduction of alternate stair capacity method based on stair lanes (instead of width)Introduction of clearance time analysis methodExpanded discussion of volume-to-capacity ratio analysis for station elementsVarious updates to text


Station Types

and

Configurations

Tower City–Public Square Station, Cleveland


Types of Stops, Stations, and Terminals

Bus stops On-street Few or no amenities

Transit centers Usually off-street Few to many amenities

Transit stations Off-street Many amenities

Busway stationsLight rail stationsHeavy rail stationsCommuter rail stationsFerry docks and terminalsIntermodal terminals


Types of Stops, Stations, and Terminals Illustrated

On-street bus stop, Albuquerque Off-street transit center, San Diego

Rapid transit station, San Francisco Grand Central Terminal, New York


Passenger

Circulation and

Level of Service

Rapid transit station, Toronto


Principles of Pedestrian Flow

Pedestrian speed is related to pedestrian density The more pedestrians, the slower the average pedestrian speed

Flow (how many pedestrians can pass by a given point) is the product of pedestrian speed and density: V = S ×D Units: pedestrians per foot width per minute

Average space per pedestrianis related to speed and flow: M = S / V

Units: square feet per pedestrian

Minato Mirai Station, Yokohama


Applying Pedestrian Flow Principles

Most design problems relate to solving for either: Station element width (e.g., stairway width) Station element area (e.g., platform area)

Result is a station element sized to accommodate a given number of persons per hour, at a design level of service

Peel Station, Montreal


Design Questions

How many bus bays (loading areas) are needed?Is there enough room for passengers to wait and circulate?Is there enough space & passenger demand for particular amenities?

Springfield Station, Springfield, Oregon


More Design Questions

Are passenger processing elements (e.g., stairs, escalators, and faregates) adequately sized and provided in sufficient number?Which station element(s) constrain capacity?What are the requirements for emergency evacuation?

South Kensington Station, London


Design Issues

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ADA requirements affect design

Addressed in TCQSM to the extent it impactsthe sizing of station elements

TCQSM provides input into the design process,but isn’t a design manual

Springfield Station, Springfield, Oregon


Emergency Evacuation

http://kaito.chinasuppliers.alibaba.com/product/10189120/10257729.html


Emergency Evacuation Design

Station design must address evacuation requirements Maximum time to evacuate platforms and reach a point of safety Based on worst-case passenger accumulations

Overall passenger flow through station is an important consideration (watch for bottlenecks!) National Fire Protection Association standard 130 (NFPA 130) specifies evacuation design needs “Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems”


NFPA 130 General Considerations

Sufficient exit capacity to evacuate station occupants (including those on trains) from platforms in 4.0 minutes or lessSufficient exit capacity to get from most remote point on platform to point of safety in 6.0 minutes or lessSecond egress route remote from major egress route from each platformMaximum distance to an exit from any point on a platform not more than 325 ftLimits on assuming availability of escalators for evacuation capacityAbove based on the 2010 version of the standard Always check the most recent version Typically updated every 3 years


Number of People to Design for Evacuation

Loads of one peak period train on each track Assume each train is one headway late (i.e., is carrying twice its normal load,

but no more than its maximum capacity load)Passengers on platform during the peak 15 minutes, assuming trains are one headway late


Design for Both Evacuation and Normal Operations

Maximum capacity required for normal operations or emergency evacuation will govern the sizing of a station elementBecause emergency evacuation routes may be different than the routes taken by passengers during normal operations, don’t assume that evacuation needs will govern in all cases


Station

Elements and

Their

Capacities

Canary Wharf Station, London (weekend)


Find the Station Elements

Shelter

Ticket Machine

Pedestrian Access

Bus Access

Walkway

Customer Info

BenchPhone

Trash Can

Lighting

Landscaping

Guideway

Platform

Stairs

Elevator

Sunset Transit Center, near Portland


Not Pictured…

FaregatesPark-and-rideBike storageArtworkElectronic displaysStation agentsDoorways/gates

RestroomsDriver break areasVending machinesEscalatorsRampsKiss-and-rideMoving walkways

Waiting

Areas

Streetcar stop, Portland


Passenger Waiting Areas

Process for sizing passenger waiting areas is based on designing for a desirable level of serviceConcepts originally presented in Fruin’s Pedestrian Planning & DesignHCM has similar concepts, but intended for sidewalks—TCQSM’s levels of service are intended for transit facilitiesLevel of service measure: average space per person


Waiting Area LOS

LOS A

LOS B

LOS C

LOS D

LOS E

LOS F

≥ 13 ft2 per person

10-13 ft2 per person

7-10 ft2 per person

3-7 ft2 per person

2-3 ft2 per person

< 2 ft2 per person


Walkways

Ferry terminal, New Orleans


Pedestrian Flow on Walkways

Source: J. Fruin, Pedestrian Planning and Design


Walkway LOS

LOS A

LOS B

LOS C

LOS D

LOS E

LOS F

≥ 35 ft2/p, avg. speed 260 ft/min

25-35 ft2/p, avg. speed 250 ft/min




< 5 ft2/p, avg. speed <150 ft./min


Walkway LOS

Expected Flows and Speeds

LOS Pedestrian

Space (ft2/p) Avg. Speed, S

(ft/min) Flow per Unit Width, v

(p/ft/min)

v/c A 35 260 0–7 0.0–0.3 B 25–35 250 7–10 0.3–0.4 C 15–25 240 10–15 0.4–0.6 D 10–15 225 15–20 0.6–0.8 E 5–10 150 20–25 0.8–1.0 F < 5 < 150 Variable Variable



Walkways

Typical average free flow pedestrian speed for design: 250 ft/minCapacity occurs at LOS E/F threshold Pedestrians move at a shuffle


Walkway Design Process

1. Based on desired LOS, identify maximum flow rate per unit width2. Estimate demand for peak 15 minutes (or shorter period surges)3. Allow for wheelchairs and people with large items4. Compute design pedestrian flow: (Step 2) / 155. Effective width = (Step 4 / Step 1)6. Add appropriate buffer width on each side

(depends on elements to each side)


Stairs andEscalators

Hollywood & Vine Station, Los Angeles


Pedestrian Flow on Stairs



Pedestrian Ascent Speed on Stairs



Stairway LOS

Avg. Ped. Space Flow per Unit Width LOS (ft2/p) (m2/p) (p/ft/min) (p/m/min) Description

A 20 1.9 5 16 Sufficient area to freely select speed and to pass slower-moving pedestrians. Reverse flows cause limited conflicts.

B 15-20 1.4-1.9 5-7 16-23 Sufficient area to freely select speed with some difficulty in passing slower-moving pedestrians. Reverse flows cause minor conflicts.

C 10-15 0.9-1.4 7-10 23-33 Speeds slightly restricted due to inability to pass slower-moving pedestrians. Reverse flows cause some conflicts.

D 7-10 0.7-0.9 10-13 33-43 Speeds restricted due to inability to pass slower-moving pedestrians. Reverse flows cause significant conflicts.

E 4-7 0.4-0.7 13-17 43-56 Speeds of all pedestrians reduced. Intermittent stoppages likely to occur. Reverse flows cause serious conflicts.

F 4 0.4 Variable Variable Complete breakdown in pedestrian flow with many stoppages. Forward progress dependent on slowest moving pedestrians.



Stairway Capacity Factors

Even minor reverse-direction flows may reduce stairway capacity by as much as one-halfAlthough sizing procedures may suggest a continuum of stairway widths, capacity is really added in one-person-width increments (roughly 30 inches)Alternate method to analyze stair capacity based on stair “lanes” (new in 3rd Edition)

Lane Width Approximate Capacity in. cm (p/min/lane) Comments

21–27 53–70 30 Notable friction, not recommended for daily use 28–30 71–78 38 Recommended for general use 31–33 79–85 42 Provides extra space and slightly greater capacity

≥34 ≥86 Little or no additional capacity May be beneficial where pedestrians carry items


Stairway Design Factors

Much new construction will use escalators as the primary vertical circulation element Can design to LOS E in this case

Where stairs will be the primary vertical circulation element, design to LOS C to DEmergency evacuation needs may result in better LOS during normal conditions


Stairway Design Process

1. Based on desired LOS, identify maximum flow rate per unit width2. Estimate peak 15-minute demand3. Compute design pedestrian flow: (Step 2) / 154. Required width = (Step 3 / Step 1)5. If minor, reverse-direction flow use occurs, add width of one lane (30

inches)


Escalator Capacity Factors

Escalator width Typically “single”, “intermediate”, or “double” width

Operating speed

Wheaton Station, Washington, DC area


Escalator Capacity Factors

Manufacturers often state capacity based on a theoretical capacity—two people on every step—which is never obtainedCapacity reduction factors Intermittent pedestrian arrivals Pedestrian hesitation at boarding (especially elderly and persons with

disabilities) Pedestrians carrying baggage or packages Pedestrian desire for a more comfortable spacing


Escalator Capacity

Nominal capacity values based on one person every other step (single-width), or one person every step (double-width)Intermediate-width escalators have capacity close to double-width but less comfort and flexibility for walking

Width at Tread Incline Speed Nominal Capacity Type (in.) (m) (ft/min) (m/min) (p/h) (p/min)

Single-width 24 0.6 90 27.4 2,040 34 120 36.6 2,700 45

Double-width 40 1.0 90 27.4 4,320 72 100 30.5 5,100 85 120 36.6 5,400 90

Source: J. Fruin, Pedestrian Planning and Design; unpublished New York City Transit data


Elevators

Washington Park Station, Portland


Elevator Usage

Usually for persons with disabilities and auxiliary to stairs/escalators, but can be primary vertical circulation in deep stationsDeep station access: New York: 168th, 181st, and 191st Streets

Washington, DC: Forest Glen

Portland, OR: Washington ParkWhen not working, impacts station access for mobility impaired, particularly when only a single elevator is provided

Elevator outage information, Washington, DC


Elevator Capacity

Calculated similarly to transit vehicle capacity: Car capacity is combination of loading standard (area per passenger) and

elevator floor area

Time to make round-trip, including time to load and unload passengers, and open and close doors

Station access elevators sometimes have doors on two sides for simultaneous loading and unloading Walk-in, walk-out without turning around


MovingWalkways

Court Square–23rd Street Station, New York


Moving Walkways

Typical speed 100 ft/min, some up to 160 ft/min Usually slower than typical walking speed

Capacity limited at entrance Speed not a factor for capacity unless it causes persons to hesitate when

enteringCapacity similar to escalators Double-width: about 90 people/min


Doorways

Manhattan Whitehall ferry terminal, New York


Doorway Capacity

Type of Entrance

Observed Average Headway (s)

Equivalent Pedestrian Volume (p/min)

Free-swinging 1.0-1.5 40-60 Revolving, per direction 1.7-2.4 25-35



FareControl

Faregates, Chicago


Fare Control Capacity

Each combination of equipment, fare media, and fare structure has a distinct processing time

Type of Entrance

Observed Average Headway (s)

Equivalent Pedestrian Volume (p/min)

Free admission (barrier only) 1.0–1.5 40–60 Ticket collection by staff 1.7–2.4 25–35 Single-slot coin- or token-operated 1.2–2.4 25–50 Double-slot coin-operated 2.5–4.0 15–25 BART (transported magstripe ticket, low bi-leaf gate) 2.3–2.9 21–26 London (transported magstripe ticket, high bi-leaf gate) 2.4 25 New York (swiped magstripe ticket, turnstile) 2.6–2.9 21–23 London (smart card, high bi-leaf gate) 2.4 25 Exit gate, 3.0 ft (0.9 m) wide 0.8 75 Exit gate, 4.0 ft (1.2 m) wide 0.6 100 Exit gate, 5.0 ft (1.5 m) wide 0.5 125

Sources: J. Fruin, Pedestrian Planning and DesignTransit Capacity & Quality of Service Manual, 2nd EditionL.S. Weinstein, TfL’s Contactless Ticketing: Oyster and BeyondA. Weinstein et al., Human Factor Constraints on Transit Faregate Capacity


TicketMachines

Ticket machines, New York


Ticket Machine Capacity

Ticket machines are one of the least-standardized portions of riding transit from one city to another (and sometimes even within cities)Service time per passenger varies widely depending on machine design and complexity of fare system Considerable variation in design and operation

Infrequent passengers require more timeConsider impacts of out-of-service machinesConsider sun glare issues with outdoor machines


Microsimulation

Embarcadero Station, San Francisco


Passenger Flow Microsimulation

Use of microsimulation software for analysis of station capacity and exiting requirements is expanded significantly.Microsimulation, which represents the cumulative movement of thousands of individuals, is better able to analyze and present the complex interactions of pedestrians in a busy multi-directional environment.Visual representations better communicate flow patterns and potential issues to decision-makers and the public



Outputs include video clips, maps, and tabular dataChoose simulation parameters and outputs to address relevant issues(not to show off the outputs)

Map of Mean Pedestrian Density on a Subway Platform



Optional: link a short microsimulation video to this slide.Set short clip to auto-loop.PB will provide video clip.


More Information

TCRP Report 165: TCQSM—Chapter 10, Station CapacityJohn J. Fruin, Pedestrian Planning and Design, Revised Edition, Elevator World, Inc., 1987

The TCQSM is available as: Free individual printed copies and PDF downloads through the TCRP

Dissemination Programhttp://www.tcrponline.org

Free PDF downloads directly from TCRPhttp://www.trb.org/TCRP/Public/TCRP.aspx (Publications section)or simply do an Internet search for the report number (e.g., TCRP Report 165)

Individual or multiple copy purchases from the TRB Bookstorehttp://books.trbbookstore.org/

http://www.tcrponline.org/

http://www.trb.org/TCRP/Public/TCRP.aspx

http://www.trb.org/TCRP/Public/TCRP.aspx

http://books.trbbookstore.org/

http://books.trbbookstore.org/


Acknowledgments and Permissions

Presentation authors Mark Walker (Parsons Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglass), based on an earlier

presentation by Paul Ryus (Kittelson & Associates, Inc.)

Photo credits Elevator outage & Wheaton station: WMATA photo by Larry Levine All others: Paul Ryus

This presentation was developed through TCRP Project A-15C Research team: Kittelson & Associates; Parsons Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglass;

KFH Group; Texas A&M Transportation Institute; and Arup This presentation and its contents may be freely distributed and used, with

appropriate credit to the presentation authors and photographers, and the Transit Cooperative Research Program

Documents

Transit Capacity & Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Station Capacity