st ‘Space per passenger (square meters) PASSENGERS PER PEAK HOUR DIRECTION on " r r © 1000020000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Figure 5.4 Peak-hour space occupancy —all U.S. systems"*” ‘Table 54 Passenger space requirements ‘Standing 0.1310 0.16 with brifease (0.25 to.0.20. Hoiding on to stanchion 0.26 ‘Minimum seated space (0:24 10 0.20. [Tight double seat (0.36 per person ‘Comfortable seating (0.54 per person Table 5.5 Passenger space requirements ‘Crush rapid transit | 26 -5.4/m® | 0.26 (2.8 sq f) Design rapid transit 1.4.4.0 /m® | 0:38 4.1 sq) [Design ight rail | 23-4.0/mn? [0.3033 ‘Actual ight ral [39-57 im?| 0.25 (2.7 sa) “To avoid contact [38-45 im? [024 @6sq Unsonsvareg’ [12-99 mt [Osos a edit rail transit capacity are shown in Table 5.4. The tight double seat corresponds closely to the North America transit seating minimum of 34- to 35-in-wide double seats on a 27- to 33-in. pitch (0.88 m by 0.76 m)— 3.6 sq ft oF 0:33 m? per seat. ‘Jacobs et al. ® contains a comprehensive section on vehicle space per passenger, stating that while 53% of U.S. rapid transit lines enjoyed rush hour loadings of 0.5 m° per passenger or better, the space requirements shown in Table 5.5 are recom- ‘Table 5.6 International transit space use ‘Some European and most a ‘Some European systems and Now York | 3.1 - ‘Most Eur cities. St Large Soviet and Japanese systems. 7A1- o 10 20 30 40 50 60 ‘% Passengers Seated + 80% Maximum Load Maximum Load Figure $.5 Passengers per length of car versus % seated mended and actual values forthe stated conditions. The report is one of the few to discuss the diversity of standing densities within a car—higher in doorways! vestibules, lower in aisles and at car ends (unless the car has end doors). Table 5.5 is particularly interesting in that the design space allocation for light rail i slightly lower than for heavy rail Klopotov™ cites typical average peak-hour space require- ments from an international survey (Table 5). Lang and So- berman™” discuss seating provisions relative to compromises between capacity and comfort. They suggest that all rapid transit cars are substantially similar in width, The report compares pas- Sengers per square foot with the percentage seated. This ranges from 0.3 passengers per square foot with SO% seated to 06 passengers per square foot with 15% seated. This is then trans- lated into passengers per linear foot of trai, as shown below in Figure 5.5. The maximum vehicle capacity is 4 passengers per linear foot—approximately 25 square feet per passenger. Lang and Soberman also discus the importance of ease of ingress and egress, recommending minimum distances between seats and doorways and discouraging three abreast seating. Comfort levels are discussed relative to smoothness of operation and the issue of supply and demand. Where systems are oversubscribed and few atractive altemate forms of transportation ae availabe, high levels of crowding will be tolerated. Where systems wish to attract passengers, higher comfort levels, ie. less crowding, are desirable. Levinson et al ®® and also the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual” introduce the concept of| loading standards A through F (crush similar tothe alphabetized level of service for road tafic. The suggested schedule design ‘capacity is 2.8 to 3.3 passengers per m’, 25% below the “crush” ‘capacity. The peak-hour factor is discussed for 1S-min peak-