Gush Dan Metro Applicability Report

METRO NETWORK
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

Executive Summary
METRO NETWORK
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE 4 4.5 STEP 3: MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS - RESULTS 108
4.6 STEP 4: FINAL NETWORK CONFIGURATION 121
NOTE FROM THE CEO 5
5. PHASES 5 AND 6: FEASIBILITY STUDIES 128
1. INTRODUCTION 6
5.1 PROCESS 128
1.1 BACKGROUND: TEL AVIV MASS TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN 6
5.2 EXCLUSIONS 128
1.2 STRATEGIC GOALS 7
5.3 FINAL TRAFFIC FORECASTS 130
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE METRO FEASIBILITY STUDIES 7
5.4 ALIGNMENT STUDIES 133
1.4 FEASIBILITY STUDIES PHASES 8
5.5 RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS AND LAND ACQUISITION SUMMARY139
2. PHASE 1: DATA COLLECTION 10 5.6 STATIONS CONTEXT PLANNING 141
2.1 COLLECTION OF INPUTS DATA 10 5.7 TYPICAL STATIONS 148
2.2 MEETINGS WITH MUNICIPALITIES 15 5.8 OPERATION 160
2.3 CONCLUSION 17 5.9 PRELIMINARY MAINTENANCE PLAN 174
3. PHASES 2 AND 3: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DETAILING OF DESIGN PARAMETERS 18 5.10 DEPOTS STUDIES 176
3.1 OVERVIEW 18 5.11 BALANCE OF POWER HV/LV OF THE METRO NETWORK 191
3.2 OPERATION 20 5.12 PARK & RIDE 193
3.3 ALIGNMENT 22 5.13 LAYOUT DESIGN EXAMPLE: RAMLE NORTH 195
3.4 UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES 23 5.14 UTILITIES IN TUNNEL 196
3.5 ELEVATED STRUCTURES 26 5.15 COST ESTIMATES: CAPEX 198
3.6 STATIONS 28 5.16 MASS TRANSIT NETWORK EXPANSION BEYOND 2040 202
3.7 TRACKS 31 5.17 EVALUATION OF STRATEGIC GOALS 213
3.8 POWER SUPPLY AND TRACTION POWER 36

3.9 COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS 38
3.10 ROLLING STOCK 40
3.11 SIGNALLING 40
3.12 PSD (PLATFORM SCREEN DOORS) 42
3.13 AFC (AUTOMATED FARE COLLECTION) 43
3.14 PARK & RIDE 45
4. PHASE 4: ALTERNATIVES REPORT 48

4.1 PROCESS SUMMARY 48
4.2 STEPS 1 AND 2: REFINEMENT OF CORRIDORS AND DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES 49
4.3 STEP 3: MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS - BASIS 61
4.4 STEP 3: MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS - INPUTS 65
2 3
Members of the Steering Committee
Ministry of Transport and Road Members of the planning team

Safety Phillippe Petit - SYSTRA
Yaakov Blitshtein Yafi Harari - D.E.L Civil Engineering Design
Irit Shperber Begona Hernandez - SYSTRA
Eitan Thee Rodrigue Marquis - SYSTRA #MetroTLV - Israel's Transportation Future

Shai Kedem Emmanuel Boutmy - SYSTRA
NTA is proud to present the Metro Network System Feasibility Study Report for
Topaz Peled Meital Katz - D.E.L Civil Engineering Design the Tel Aviv metropolitan area.
Avi Lindenbaum - Ari Cohen Architecture &
Akiva Rom
Urban Planning This study is a direct continuation of the Israeli Government's strategic plan
Ministry of Finance Ari Cohen - Ari Cohen Architecture & Urban to develop a mass transit system incorporating LRT lines and Metro lines - a
Asaf Wasertzug Planning network that would significantly upgrade Tel Aviv metropolitan area public
Sharon Arie - Ari Cohen Architecture & transportation system, as well as leverage economic growth.
Harel Shliissel
Urban Planning
Alon Meser
Moshik Levin - G.G.S - Geological & This feasibility study and the concept design was conducted by a team of local
Director of Planning Geotechnical Surveys and international experts, based on a thorough and professional examination
Naomi Cohen-Zagagi - Yaron Evron Engineering of planning alternatives, considering dozens of criteria, including engineering,
Daniela Posek
economic, social and environmental aspects – in order to provide the best
Yaron Evron - Yaron Evron Engineering
Guy Kaplan possible transportation services for residents and commuters of the metropolis.
Osnat Arnon
Adit Kremer
Bertrand Maitre - SYSTRA
Nava Alinsky The urgent need for the construction of a metro network is agreed upon all
professional factors in the Transport and Finance Ministries: it is the necessary
Littal Yadin
Additional consultants response for our road congestion problems and the metropolis' future
Naomi Angel economic development needs. NTA, having proven its execution capabilities in
Nir Sharav
Ron Rekach the Red Line project in these past few years, is committed to continue promoting
Markus Sainok the design and execution of the metro lines as quickly as possible.
Israel Railways Anat Sherter - TOP Consulting and
Boaz Fux Engineering
Sincerely,
Member of NTA
Yehuda Bar-On
Nir Kugel Yehuda Bar-On
Keren Katz Ganani CEO of NTA
Dr. Yotam Barlach
4 5
1. Introduction
1.1 Background: Tel Aviv Mass Transit Strategic Plan public transportation network:
The Metro Feasibility Study was undertaken on the basis of the Tel Aviv Mass Transit Line M1: North/South backbone passing through Tel Aviv and with 4 branches serving
Strategic Plan, finalized in 2016 and defining the shape of the future Tel Aviv Metropolitan Hertzliya/Raanana, Ramat Hasharon, Holon, Rishon Letzion, Rehovot, Ramle, etc.
Area (TAM) public transportation network for the horizon 2040, which is planned to be Line M2: East/West radial line linking the centre of Tel Aviv to Givatayim, Ramat Gan,
structured around a core of 3 Metro lines, as shown below. Petah Tikva and Rosh Hayin.
Line M3: semi-circular service of secondary development areas in the inner ring (Glilot,
Atidim, Kiryat Arye, Tel Hashomer, east-west axis through Holon and Bat Yam), also
ensuring the required connectivity between lines of the network.
These corridors were the starting point of the Metro Feasibility Studies.
1.2 Strategic goals

The 8 strategic goals defined with the Tel Aviv Mass Transit Strategic Plan were as
follows:
Level of service
Transit speed: average mass transit network speed 25km/h
Service supply: 100 yearly public transport vehicle.km per capita
Accessibility: average 60% of the population with a travel time not exceeding 45-60
minutes
Coverage: average 60% of the population and employments within a distance of 600m
from the mass transit stations/stops
Usage
Annual boardings: at least 250 annual boardings per capita
Modal split: public transport share reaching 40% of total daily motorized trips
Investment
Mass transit infrastructure length: 150m of dedicated public transport right-of-way per
1,000 habitants
Investment per capita: around 50,000 NIS per capita (2015 prices)
The initial Mass Transit Master Plan comprised only LRT and BRT corridors and its In order to evaluate the network defined with the Metro feasibility studies, it was decided
insufficiencies were pointed out in the Mass Transit Strategic Plan: with NTA to check how these target are met.
The lack of efficient long-distance connections between Tel Aviv CBD and the main cities 1.3 Purpose of the Metro Feasibility Studies
of the Metropolitan area (Kfar Saba, Raanana, Rehovot, Rishon Letzion, Ramle/Lod),
beyond the scope of the planned LRT lines, While the Tel Aviv Mass Transit Strategic Plan considered all modes (Metro, LRT, BRT) at a
high level, the present work aimed at focusing only on the 3 Metro corridors in order to
The lack of connectivity between radial lines, implying the consideration of ring corridors, provide a thorough techno-economic feasibility study for their implementation:
The necessary heavy investment for a mass transit network providing coverage, speed Context study,
and capacity, as per the standards observed in similar urban areas abroad.
Design criteria covering infrastructure, systems, operation, environment, etc.,
The 3 proposed Metro corridors were the response for this necessary upgrade of the
Corridors refinement and alignment alternatives,
Validation of an optimal network configuration
6 7
1. Introduction
Studies based on the selected configuration and covering: alignment, operation, rolling
stock/depots, power supply and systems, etc.
1.4 Feasibility Studies phases

The studies, which are summarized in the present document, were implemented
through 6 successive Phases:
Phase 1 – Data Collection: Comprehensive review and analysis of the available

information, plans and studies as well as making site visits to serve as input data for the
execution of the services.
Phase 2 – Design Guidelines: Definition of the design guidelines of the Mass Transit
System as presented in the Tel Aviv Mass Transit Strategic Plan and to generate a
sweeping view of the network and its integration with major developments.
Phase 3 – Detailing of technical parameters: Definition of the basic technical

parameters which define the Metro Network in Tel Aviv. The transport system was
defined by its infrastructure, its systems characteristics, its rolling stock (capacity and
size), its operational conditions and its maintenance facilities.
Phase 4 - Alternatives Report: Definition of the optimum transport system to cater to

the expected level of travel demand (with a minimum impact on existing buildings and
infrastructures) and optimum station locations serving key destination areas.
Phase 5 & 6: Feasibility: Refine the selected alignment for each of the metro lines.
The main technical characteristics were highlighted in order to prepare the next design
stages.
The process and outputs of these 6 phases are highlighted in the present document.
8
2. Phase 1: Data Collection
This phase was marked by the collection of inputs data (mapping, statistics, projects, • Population and employment forecasts for 2010, 2030 and 2040, essential for the study,
environment, etc.), meetings with relevant municipalities and site visits. definition and comparison of alignment alternatives in particular. The examples below
are:
2.1 Collection of inputs data Population density map for 2012 based on population figures and model zoning
2.1.1 Main data Population growth map based on 2012 figures and 2040 forecasts
The data collected included:

Base layers covering municipalities, transport model zoning, road networks, satellite pictures,
etc. Below from left to right:
Layer of municipalities of the TAM and division into rings
Transport model zoning (1220 zones) also working with population and employment data
Built areas layer
Figure 3. Maps from population data
• Existing/planned networks complementary to Metro: bus, rail, LRT, BRT. For example:
Israel Railways network in the TAM distinguishing existing lines (black) and future
projects (blue)
RT (Red, Green, Purple, Brown) and BRT (Blue, Pink, Yellow) lines as defined in
L
the initial Mass Transit Master Plan
Figure 1. Examples of base layers
• Physical context and environment. The examples below from left to right are:
Geotechnical profiles (Red Line project)
Mapping of sensitive environment area (Environment GIS data)
Figure 4. Rail network and LRT/BRT projects
Figure 2. Geotechnical and environmental data

10 11
• Tel Aviv transport model data and initial Metro corridors from the Tel Aviv Mass Transit 2.1.2 Main findings
Strategic Plan for a first analysis of their relevancy 2.1.2.1 Transportation analysis
The work was based on the Tel Aviv Transport Model outputs for a first picture of the 2040
traffic forecasts of the complete mass transit network in the TAM area (Metro corridors,
LRT, Israel Railways).
The model data were supposed to take into account all the future urban developments
for 2040. This first run allowed to observe the predominance of M1 corridor, backbone of
the network, and to have a base of comparison for the further phases, particularly Phase
4 where the model was to be re-run for comparing the alternative alignments.
Morning peak
Lines
boardings
Israel Railways 49 500

Figure 5. Metro corridors and traffic forecasts for M1
Red Line 38 300
• Urban planning data: Districts plans, housing plans, mega projects, comprehensive
Green Line 32 200
local plans
Purple Line 27 000
Metro M1 73 300
Metro M2 32 200
Metro M3 27 400
Figure 7. Load map for the entire mass transit network (2040)
Figure 6. Projects compilation and example of comprehensive local plan
12 13
2.1.2.2 Metro corridors vs. existing and future densities 2.2 Meetings with municipalities
Collection of the population/employment forecasts as well as urban projects data allowed A thorough program was undertaken to meet all municipalities potentially more or less
to estimate the matching of the Mass Transit Strategic Plan Metro corridors with the 2040 covered by the Metro corridors, thus potentially involved in the Metro projects. The
densities and projects mapping of the TAM. The superimposition, illustrated below, lead municipalities are listed in the table below.
to the following conclusions:
• All 3 Metro corridors consistent with the 2040 picture, in particular population and
employment densities, mega projects and housing plans, thus confirming the N˚ Municipality
relevancy of the conclusions of the Mass Transit Strategic Plan
1 Givat Shmuel 14 Kyriat Ono
• No major questioning of the M2 corridor, only local refinements to define in Phase 4
2 Ramle 15 Lod
• Potential alternatives routes for M3 in the North and South areas
3 Raanana 16 Holon
• Need for optimization of M1: not the corridor itself but the shape of the line, in order
to reduce the share of the branches (89% of the total length) and to have branches less 4 Ramat Gan 17 Drom Hasharon
close to each other
5 Rosh Hayin 18 Beer Yaakov
6 Kyriat Ekron 19 Kfar Saba
7 Tel Aviv 20 Rehovot
8 Hertzliya 21 Ramat Hasharon
9 Ness Tziona 22 Mikve Israel
10 Bat Yam 23 Azur
11 Hod Hasharon 24 Or Yehuda
12 Petah Tikva 25 Givatayim
13 Rishon Letzion 26 Kyriat Ono
Figure 9. List of municipalities meetings
Figure 8. Superimposition of Metro corridors and 2040 urban densities and projects
14 15
The purpose of these meetings which were held between July and August 2017 was to: In conclusion the meetings with municipalities allowed to collect more information and
• Collect thoughts and expectation of the municipalities regarding the Metro project data regarding the local contexts along the corridors, and therefore a useful material for
the definition of the alignment alternatives in Phase 4. However, there was some limits:
• Identify all current and future major urban developments and projects (comprehensive
local plans) to feed the data collection process • Most of the ideas and requests from the city engineers were based on a micro-scale
visions (alternative routes, stations) that were not necessarily compatible with the
• Discuss the initial corridors and municipalities wishes in terms of routes, potential needs and requirements at the macro-scale of a Metro Line/network (balanced service,
station locations, etc. performance, etc.),
In addition to the comprehensive local plans, the main outputs of this process were • Therefore, in preparation for the Phase 4, it was necessary to filtering: some ideas will
summary maps of each municipality, identifying the focal points for stations and potential influence the definition of alternatives only when relevant at the scale of each line.
alternative routes reflecting the ideas expressed by the city engineers.
2.3 Conclusion
The Phase 1 process was successful with the collection of all essential data for a feasibility
study, providing a good framework for the following phases.
It particularly allowed to confirm the relevancy of the 3 Metro corridors from the Mass
Transit Strategic Plan and to have all the necessary data and information (traffic forecasts,
urban densities, projects, ideas from municipalities) that would enable to refine them in
the Phase 4 for the definition of alignment alternatives.
Figure 10. Examples of maps summarizing projects and ideas from municipalities
(Rosh Hayin and Holon)
16 17
3. Phases 2 and 3: Design
Guidelines and Detailing of
Design Parameters
After the data collection and in parallel with the elaboration of the alternatives, the
Phase 2: Design Guidelines Phase 3: DTP
definition of the design criteria for the future Metro network was done in 2 steps.
Operation and Maintenance Design
Production of Design Guidelines (Phase 2) based on international standards but consistent Operation and Maintenance Design Criteria
Guidelines
with Israeli codes/standards. They covered all relevant disciplines (infrastructure/stations,
systems, operation, environment, etc.) and focused on aspects such as intermodality, Alignment Design Guidelines Alignment Design Criteria
sustainability, urban planning. Infrastructure Design Guidelines - Infrastructure - Underground Structures
Following the high-level vision, the basic technical parameters of the Metro network (Phase Underground Structures Design Criteria
3) were defined with a more detailed approach, and these DTP associated with the design Infrastructure Design Guidelines - Elevated Infrastructure - Elevated Structures Design
guidelines allowed to have a complete set of design criteria covering the key disciplines of Structures Criteria
the project, particularly: Stations Design Guidelines Stations Design Criteria
• Alignment/tracks Depot Design Criteria
• Civil works (options for tunnels and viaducts) MEP - Station and Linear Infrastructure
• Stations, power supply and other subsystems Design Criteria
Systems - Track Design Criteria Systems -
• Operation Track Design Guidelines
Track Laying Schematics Design Criteria
• Rolling stock Systems - Power Supply Design Criteria
Systems Design Guidelines - Power Supply
• Depots and maintenance Systems - Power Supply Single Line Diagram
and Traction Power
Design Criteria
• Park and ride, etc
Systems Design Guidelines - Rolling Stock Systems - Rolling Stock Design Criteria
Systems Design Guidelines - Signalling Systems - Signalling Design Criteria
3.1 Overview
The following table provides the list of the Design Guidelines and Technical Parameters Systems Design Guidelines - PSD Systems - PSD Design Criteria
(DTP) produced for each topics. Systems Design Guidelines -
Systems - Communication - Design Criteria
Communications Systems
Rail Systems - AFC Design Guidelines Systems - AFC - Design Criteria
RAMS/Fire Life Safety
Environmental and Sustainability Environmental and Sustainability - Design
Guidelines Criteria
Park and Ride Design Criteria (common Phases 2 and 3)
18 19
Design Parameters
3.2 Operation 3.2.2 DTP

3.2.1 Design Guidelines In Phase 3, the operation topics were completed with more detailed elements taking into
It defined basic requirements regarding: account the context of the project.
• Operation targets • Demand analysis and corresponding headway assumptions for the 3 lines, based on the
transport model outputs processed in Phase 1 (pphpd forecasts). It helped introducing
• Production and quality of service, including safety, commercial speed, comfort, the assumption of 3 minutes headway for all lines in 2040.
regularity, availability and continuity
• Rolling stock options
• Signalling system and automation, explaining the benefits of the CBTC systems for
signalling, and the highest grade of automation (GoA4) regarding the driving. lassic width of 2.8m or large trains of 3.2m, to be chosen in Phase 4 based on
C
updated traffic forecasts,
Trains length, considering options between 108 and 126m depending of the width,
meeting the capacity target of around 1030 passengers defined in line with the
pphpd.
Running time estimation based on the length of the corridors and assuming the
targeted average speed of 35km/h.
Rolling stock fleet estimation based on the running time estimation, as illustrated
below for a 3 minutes headway.
Fleet
needed for Maintenance Reserve for
Line TOTAL
operation in (10%) operation
peak hour
M1
• Infrastructure and equipment: requirements for stations, platform screen doors,
degraded modes of service, evacuation, power supply, control center, communications, (Northeast – 30 3 1 34
depots Southeast)
• Maintenance, in particularly the 5 relevant levels. M1
(Northwest- 27 3 1 31
Southwest)
M2 26 3 1 30
M3 31 4 1 36
Table 1. Fleet for a 180s headway
20 21
Design Parameters
3.3 Alignment 3.4 Underground structures

3.3.1 Design guidelines 3.4.1 Design guidelines
It defined basic requirements regarding: It first defined applicable codes and standards, specifying the priority given to Israeli
• Urban integration: for example minimizing demolitions and land acquisitions, avoiding standards prior to foreign/international ones.
third party structures, minimizing visual intrusion, etc. It then defined basic requirements regarding:
• Performance of the Metro lines: speed, comfort, capacity • Design life (100 years), durability, robustness
• Characteristics of urban insertion: elevated, transitions elevated/underground, • Design loads
underground • Flotation, waterproofing and drainage
• Summary of design principles and key arbitrations • Civil Defense
• Safety and evacuation, protection against fire and attacks Geotechnical investigations
• General design and construction methodologies
Tunnel configuration alternatives (twin bore, single)
Constructions methods (TBM, conventional method, etc.)
Figure 7: Main driving factors in the design of the metro lines
3.3.2 DTP
Following the basic requirements, the DTP completed the design criteria with the following Figure 11. Typical cross-section for twin tunnel single-track
aspects:
• Applicable codes and standards
• General design requirements:
Speed: 90km/h for design, 80km/h for operation
Curve radius: minimum in tunnel, viaduct and depot
Gradients: maximum values in line, stations, depot
Track gauge: standard 1435mm
• Alignment design requirements: detailed values for horizontal and vertical alignments.
Figure 12. Typical cross-section for single tunnel double-tracks
22 23
Design Parameters
3.4.2 DTP
Following the basic requirements, the DTP completed the design criteria with the following
aspects:
• Civil defense: functional and civil engineering requirements with appropriate values
• General values to take into account for the design, loads in particular
• Design criteria for materials: concrete, reinforcement steel, structural steel, etc.
• Additional design requirements for underground structures, completing chapters
initiated in Phase 2 with appropriate values and criteria Figure 13. Open Trench – typical cross-section
• Comparison of construction methods with advantages/disadvantages, e.g. between
bottom-up and top-down
Figure 14. Cut and Cover type 1 – typical cross-section

Figure 11. Excavation Method: bottom up sequence
• Design principles for cut-and-cover and mined stations.

• Comparative analysis between tunnel configurations (single tunnel vs. twin bore
tunnels), highlighting the advantage of the twin tunnels in safety and evacuation
despite higher cost and larger footprint.
• Additional technical details regarding tunnelling methods (TBM, CTM, cut-and-cover),
dewatering, materials specifications, etc.
Figure 12. Excavation Method: top down sequence
• Principles and examples regarding retaining structures

• Details regarding vertical transitions areas
Figure 15. Tunnelling method – mechanized with EPB TBM
24 25
Design Parameters
3.5 Elevated structures 3.5.2 DTP

3.5.1 Design guidelines Following the basic requirements, the DTP completed the design criteria with the following
It first defined applicable codes and standards covering structures/geotechnics, fire safety aspects:
and civil defense, mainly focusing on Israeli standards (e.g. SI 5435) complemented by • Alignment inputs
European standards (EUROCODES). • Track types (UIC54/EN54E1 or UIC60/EN60E, standard gauge 1435mm)
It then defined basic requirements regarding: • Interface with rolling stock and functional design of the deck
• Design life (100 years), durability, robustness • General requirements: aesthetics, maintenance and inspection
• Civil defense (reference to the code) • Bridge design requirements
• Safety and evacuation Material characteristics: concret, steel reinforcements, steel structures
Loads (static, dynamic, etc.), providing numerous values
Sismicity
Structural checking criteria
Vibration and deflection
Rail structure interaction
• Geotechnical parameters
• Civil defense and security requirements, taking into account the specific Israeli
requirements collected from the security consultant MTRS
Figure 3: Typical solution for emergency stairs in standard viaducts
• Fire protection
• Design loads
• General design methodology and typologies of viaducts, including comparative anlysis
Adaptability
Environment Urban
Durability to site Cost
impact impact
constrains
Prestressed
concrete beams ++ ++ + + 3
viaduct
Steel-concrete
++ +++ ++ ++ 3.5
composite viaduct
Box girder viaduct +++ +++ ++ +++ 3.5
“U-shape” viaduct
+++ +++ + + 4
– 2 types
Table 2. Brief comparative analysis table for standard viaducts solutions
26 27
Design Parameters
3.6 Stations 3.6.2 DTP

3.6.1 Design guidelines Following the basic requirements, the DTP completed the design criteria with the following
It first defined applicable codes and standards, specifying the priority given to Israeli aspects:
standards prior to foreign/international ones. • Minimum levels of service for public areas
It then defined basic requirements regarding:
PUBLIC AREAS: LEVELS OF SERVICE TO BE ATTAINED
• Passenger comfort, for example the level of service for the public
Concerned Area Level of Service (LOS)
Waiting areas - Ticketing LOS A Queuing
Concourse & Corridors
One-way LOS D Walking
Two-way LOS C Walking
LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Stairs
0.7-0.9 m²/
1.2 m²/pax 0.9-1.2m²/pax 0.3-0.7m²/pax 0.2-0.3m²/pax 0.2 m²/pax One-way LOS D Stairs
pax
Standing Space Two-way LOS C Stairs
without provided
Restricted Platforms LOS C Standing
Restricted personal for standing
circulation Very close
Space for circulation conflict with but personal
through contact,
standing through others but conflict with • Minimum egress sizing values
queue physical and
and free queue by circulation others is
without psychological
circulation disturbing through impossible.
disturbing discomfort. ELEMENT M/MIN
others queue is Circulation
others
severely within queue Corridors 61
restricted is impossible.
Stairs & Stopped Escalators UP 50
Stairs & Stopped Escalators DOWN 60
• Other aspects of functional design such as egress/access, integration within the urban
Fare collection gates 50 ppm/gate
fabric, accessibility, intermodality, lighting, acoustics/noise, facilities and passenger
services, maintenance, aesthetics, etc. Fare collection gates (turnstiles) 25 ppm/gate
• MEP design guidelines, including:
Smoke management,
Heating, ventilation and air conditioning, providing minimum/maximum values
(temperatures, humidity, etc.)
Fire-fighting system
Escalators/elevators
Plumbing and lighting
28 29
Design Parameters
• Key design principles for intermodality 3.7 Tracks

• Minimum values for lighting, 3.7.1 Design Guidelines
• Design principles for accoutics, including examples of treatment systems It first defined applicable codes and standards, mostly from international standards (UIC,
EN).
• Track gauge (1435mm) and exle lodad (16t)
• Tchnical requirement regarding rail profile, inclination, etc.
• Rail description and fastening systems, supports, etc.
Figure 16. Examples of various acoustic treatment systems
• Examples of passenger information systems and list of passenger facilities

• Requirements for ticketing, e.g. reversible gates, 1200mm clear width, extra width units
for reduced mobility passenger, minimum distances in front of ticketing equipment,
Typologies of trackform solutions for line, depots, including detailed description and
etc.
illustrations
• Safety requirements and examples
Figure 18. Typical trackform with embedded bi-block sleepers

Figure 17. Example of in-station safety equipment and guidelines
• Advertising examples
• Maintenance requirements
Figure 19. Precast plinths with DFF fastening system

30 31
Design Parameters
• Typologies of turnouts and switches 3.7.2 DTP

• Anti-derailment devices Following the basic requirements, the DTP completed the design criteria with the following
• Third rail typologies (for power collection), leading to recommend the bottom contact aspects:
for safety purpose • Summary of proposed design conditions and parameters
CRITERIA
Track gauge 1435 mm
Trackform Ballastless
Design speed 90 km/h
Max. operating speed 80 km/h
4 % (mainline tracks)
Max. gradient running track
6 % (depot access)
536 m
Figure 20. Power collection principles Minimum horizontal curve radius main
line tracks Absolut minimum horizontal curve radius
is 150 m on viaduct and 250 m in tunnel
Train Power Supply 1500 volt DC
Third rail
Power conductor Return current through running rails or
eventually via 4th rail
Three rail system - from under
Power collection
Four rail system - side contact
Inclination of rail 1 in 20
Rail profile UIC: 54E1 or 60E1
Max +33°C
Figure 21. Example of functional dimensions of third rail equipment Climate Condition Air Temperature
Min +9°C
Max 73%
• Vehicle-arresting devices: buffer stops, wheel Climate Condition Ambient Humidity
Min 63%
stops.
Table 2. Track design parameters
32 33
Design Parameters
• Design life: concrete slab 100 years, rails 35 years, fastening 30 years, etc. • Track structures for depots
• Requirements for mainline tracks in different tunnel configurations • Design requirements for rail profile, rail material
• Design requirements for continuous welded rail (CWR) and neutral rail temperature
• Design requirements for switches and crossings: crossing angle, type of rail, radius,
material and all other required parameters
• Comparative analysis confirming the recommended configuration for 3rd rail (on 1 side)
Figure 22. Single track in twin tunnels - Casted in situ slab track with DFF
• Requirements for mainline tracks in elevated sections, based in plinth tracks
Figure 23. Double track on U-shaped girder viaduct. Casted in situ plinth-track with DFF.
Table 3. Pros and cons between chosen configuration of three-rail or four-rail

conductor rail systems.
• Example of configurations for arresting devices
34 35
Design Parameters
3.8 Power supply and traction power • Typologies of traction power collection: 3rd rail, 4th rail, catenary
3.8.1 Design Guidelines • Earthing and bonding principles and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)
It first defined applicable codes and standards, specifying the priority given to Israeli
standards prior to foreign/international ones.
• MH/HV distribution system, considering 33kV for the MV and 162kV for the HV
• Examples of distribution patterns (antenna, loop)
Figure 26. Figure 4 Example for Earthing a typical bonding principle in bored tunnels
3.8.2 DTP
Following the basic requirements, the DTP completed the design criteria with the following
aspects:
Figure 24. Example of antenna and loop type patterns voltage level till 11, 20 or 33kV • Comparison of current collection types, confirming the recommendation of the third
rail over catenary solutions
Traction power substations: location, tension levels, rectifiers • Recommendation of 1500Vdc rather than 750Vdc for the line voltage
configuration • Power traction substations typology, to be determined during the simulation process
in next phase
• Interface to manage for the design: other systems, energy supplier requirements
• Design procedure
• Grounding system, particularly earthing and bondig, lighting protection
• Details about EMC
Figure 25. Example of rectifier configurations (Secheron)
36 37
Design Parameters
3.9 Communication Systems • SCADA

3.9.1 Design Guidelines Operational Performance
It defined the basic requirements regarding:
• Functional: Data communication network, local network, radio, recording, telephone,
help points, video surveillance, intrusion detection, SCADA, passenger information
display, etc.
• Technical aspects
• Interfaces
• Performance
3.9.2 DTP
Table 6. SCADA operational performance
In Phase 3, the communication system design topics were completed with more detailed
elements taking into account the context of the project. Interfaces
• Information Security system
Table 7. SCADA interfaces

Table 4. Demilitarized zone (DMZ) principle
• Physical Security Information Management System
• Communication backbone network (CBN) Organization
Table 8. General PSIM Organization

Table 5. Operational, administrative and public related transmission network
Interface requirements
38 39
Design Parameters
3.10 Rolling Stock 3.11.2 DTP

3.10.1 Design Guidelines In Phase 3, the Signalling topics were completed with more detailed elements taking into
It defined the basic requirements regarding: account the context of the project.
• Design Principles: main dimensions, aesthetic and environmental conditions, comfort • Recommendation from Operational point:
requirements • Fully automated
• Functional aspects: design and system, power (supply and collection, traction and • GoA level 4, UTO
braking)
• No driver on train attendant
• Safety and Emergency Systems, Fire Safety
• Degraded modes to cover: delocalization, temporary loss of communication, re-
• Operating modes and Control Management Systems
start on board or trackside ATC
• Performance and Maintainability
•
Degraded mode: system to cover restoration of automatic operation under
• Passenger Communication remote control of operators at OCC/BOCC
3.10.2 DTP • Distributed architecture recommended
In Phase 3, the Rolling Stock topics were completed with more detailed elements taking
into account the context of the project.
• Rolling stock options
Classic width of 2.8m or large trains of 3.2m, to be chosen in Phase 4 based on
updated traffic forecasts
Trains length, considering options between 108 and 126m depending of the width,
meeting the capacity target of around 1030 passengers defined in line with the
pphpd
• Bogies of two axels, designed for a speed of 90 Km/h and with a 30-year lifetime
warranty
• Best solution after comparing the options of: 3rd rail, 4th rail (superimposed rails) 4th
rail (rails in both sides)
Infrastructure: either 750V DC or 1500V DC from third rail Figure 27. CBTC system architecture
Power supply: 1500V DC from 4th rail (superimposed rails)
• Deployment of secondary detection
3.11 Signalling
• Use of UPS system recommended
3.11.1 Design Guidelines
It defined the basic requirements regarding:
• General performance and operation modes
• Functional aspects: ATP, ATO, ATS and depot
• Human-machine interface
• External interface: rolling stock, PSD, passenger communication, traction power, etc.
• Technical system aspects
40 41
Design Parameters
3.12 PSD (Platform screen doors) 3.13 AFC (Automated Fare Collection)
3.12.1 Design Guidelines 3.13.1 Design Guidelines
It defined the basic requirements regarding: It defined the basic requirements regarding:
• General aspects • Operational aspects
• Functional: PSD sliding doors, emergency escape, platform end door, local control • Architectures
panel, control system • Technical aspects: design, ergonomics, flexibility, durability, communication,
• Technical aspects environmental, external interfaces
• Interfaces • Overall performance: management, processing, payment, ingress/egress, data
• Performance prcessing
• Alternative detection systems 3.13.2 DTP
3.12.2 DTP In Phase 3, the PSD topics were completed with more detailed elements taking into account
the context of the project.
In Phase 3, the PSD topics were completed with more detailed elements taking into account
the context of the project. • Recommended AFC technical architecture “Dedicated Level 3”
• Highly recommended the use of full height PSD

• PSD architecture shall include: motorized sliding doors (MSD), emergency exit doors
(EED), fixed screens, platform end doors (PED), platform screen door local control
panel, and fixed panels (FP)
Figure 28. PSD system architectural elements
• Interfaces to consider with the following subsystems: Figure 30. Metro AFC system
Figure 29. Interface Overview
42 43
Design Parameters
• Functional architecture: use of a store value card
Figure 33. Examples of RAM performance indicators of a AFC device (typical)
3.14 Park & Ride
Figure 31. Sore value card use A single Design Criteria document (common to Phases 2 and 3) was delivered for the Park
& Ride that were to be studied throughout the Metro network for attracting car users and
• Infrastructure Integration promote modal shift to the Metro. The main categories of criteria referred to the location,
the sizing and the design principles.
3.14.1 Location guidelines
The location guidelines were summarized as follows:
• P&R shall be located so as to catch trips from catchment areas,
• P&R shall be accessible from targeted catchment areas,
• P&R shall be located near major roads leading to the city centre and accommodating
a heavy traffic,
• It should be easy for users to access/egress the P&R from/to these roads,
• In case of road congestion, P&R shall be located just ahead of congestion,
Figure 32. Synthetic view of AFC equipment location in station • P&R shall be located on Metro lines that offer competitive travel times, headways,
times of operation etc. as compared to road,
• Performance criteria • P&R shall be located so as not to compete with other existing or planned P&R,
Sale Equipment: • P&R shall be located so as not to compete with local Public Transport feeder lines,
Automatic Ticketing Machines (TVM): minimum 2/station • P&R shall be located where land can be purchased/leased easily. Ideally, vacant land
Credit Loading Machines (CLM) with single-ownership should be favoured,
Point of service/sale (POS): minimum 2/station • Local plans: keeping the required distance from sensitive uses (residential, public
buildings),
Validation Equipment:
• In open spaces with low sensitivity / value adjacent to the land uses above (with priority
Automatic Fare Gate: allowance of passenger equivalent to 2 full trains to
to agricultural or open countryside land uses).
leave the station in less than 5 min
Control Equipment:
Inspector portable Unit (IPU)
Reliability, Availability, Maintainability (RAM)
44 45
Design Parameters
3.14.2 Sizing guidelines

The size estimation of P&R shall be based on three main approaches:
• Estimation of the demand,
• Determination of associated P&R capacity,
• Proposition of a relevant phasing.
3.14.3 Design guidelines
The design of these facilities shall take into account the followings:
• Road accessibility,
• Interchange and accessibility from P&R to Metro station,
• Layout – at grade/multi-story/automated.
Figure 34. Park & Ride example
46
4. Phase 4: Alternatives report
4.1 Process summary 4.2 Steps 1 and 2: refinement of corridors and definition of alternatives
The Phase 4 was the most strategic part of the Feasibility study as it aimed to define, As a first step, the refinement of the corridors was undertaken in order to transform each
analyse and compare robust alternative Metro alignments prior to selecting the best Mass Transit Strategic Plan corridor into a viable alignment, then called the reference
possible option for each line. alignment, taking into account of the followings:
It was generally developed in 4 steps: • Rational and efficient route serving most of the key urban centres and mega projects
• Refinement of the initial Mass Transit Strategic Plan corridors based on Phase 1 outputs identified in data collection and during meetings with municipalities,
(data, some ideas from the municipalities), • Technically feasible alignment considering the contract requirements (commercial
• Definition of technically viable alternative alignments (according to Phases 2/3 design speed, key stations locations) and the design criteria defined in Phases 2 and 3 for
criteria) for each line and model run for each alternative for comparison purpose, alignment and stations among others. The main criteria were:
• Multicriteria analysis (MCA) of the alternatives line per line and recommendations, Large curves (minimum 250m radius) in order to ensure good commercial speed
(minimum 55km/h in curve) and being suitable for both underground and elevated
• Steering Committee arbitration and choice of a final alignment for each line prior to options,
start the design in Phase 5.
Alignment as much as possible along existing roads and through public lands for
The process is summarized in the scheme below. easy accommodation of Metro stations and minimizing land takes,
Stations in straight alignment sections only.
Once the reference alignment was defined, the second step was to:
• Split it into relevant sectors, taking into account the geography, urban fabric, projects,
etc.
• Define for each sector up to 2 more alternatives routes serving various areas and
points of interest, which was mostly based on ideas expressed by the municipalities at
data collection stage, and investigations by the project team taking into account urban
densities, projects and arterial roads.
• Transformation of the alternative routes into viable Metro alignments following the
same criteria described for the reference alignment. Including the latter, there was in
average 3 alternative alignment for each geographic sector of a line.
Figure 35. Tunnelling method – mechanized with EPB TBM
The next subchapters illustrate the process and the outputs for each line.
48 49
step 1 step 2
4.2.1 M1 corridor and alternatives
The refinement of the corridor of M1 took into account the drawbacks of the Mass Transit
Strategic Plan corridor identified in Phase 1 regarding the excessive share of the branches,
which accounted for 90% of the length of the line and were often too close to each other.
This configuration potentially involved:
• High length (80km) and corresponding investment cost,
• Low quality of service with no more than a train every 6 minutes on the branches
instead of 3 minutes for the central section.
Figure 39. M1 corridor before and after rationalization
Step 2: The following step was to divide the new reference alignment into 4 geographical
sectors and design alternative alignments for each sector, 12 in total with reference
alignment, as shown in the map below.
step 3
Figure 38. Analysis of the initial M1 corridor before rationalization
Therefore the corridor was rationalized following the following principles figure39:
• Pushing North and South splits as further as possible in order to maximize the length
of the central section, avoid duplication in the South and reduce the total length of the
line,
• Ensuring more distance between branches for improving the coverage of the line,
particularly in the North
The outputs of this work (before and after) are illustrated in the map below, with the
initial Strategic Plan corridor (length 80km) in blue colour and the optimized reference
alignment (length 72km) in black colour.
Figure 40. Summary map of M1 sectors and alternative alignments
50 51
Total length of the

Sectors Alternatives Total stations
line
North-West A1 (Ref.) 71.9 km 57

(Raanana) A2 74.0 km 50
B1 (Ref.) 71.9 km 57
North-East (Kfar B2 77.3 km 61

Saba) B3 80.9 km 62
B4 78.6 km 59
C1 (Ref.) 71.9 km 57
Tel Aviv CBD C2 72.0 km 57
C3 74.2 km 58
D1 71.9 km 57
South Tel Aviv D2 70 .0 km 54
D3 74.4 km 58
Figure 40. North-East alternatives
E1/F1 71.9 km 57
F2 77.3 km 61
South
F3 80.9 km 62
F4 78.6 km 59
Table 9. Summary table of M1 alternatives

The maps below show the alternatives for each sector.
Figure 41. Tel Aviv CBD and South Tel Aviv alternatives
Figure 39. North-West alternatives
52 53
step 2
Figure 44. M2 reference alignment after optimization
The reference alignment was longer than the initial corridor (24.5km instead of 20.5km)
mostly due to its extension towards Shlavim in Tel Aviv CBD, as per a request from the Tel
Aviv municipality. The route was splitted into 3 geographical sectors from West to East,
and 10 alternatives were defined in total, including the reference alignment.
Figure 42. South-West/South-East alternatives step 3
The same process was undertaken for M2, besides rationalization which was not necessary
for this corridor. The outputs are shown in the maps below
step 1

Figure 43. M2 initial corridor (Mass Transit Strategic Plan)
54 55
Total length of the

line
A1 (Ref.) 24.4 km 21
Tel Aviv CBD A2 24.8 km 21
A3 24.9 km 21
B1 (Ref.) 24.4 km 21
Ramat Gan/ B2 24.4 km 21

Petah Tikva B3 24.7 km 21
B4 27.6 km 24
C1 (Ref.) 24.4 km 21
Sirkin/Rosh Hayin C2 25.5 km 22 Figure 48. Sirkin/Rosh Hayin alternatives
C3 23.6 km 21
Table 10. Summary table of M2 alternatives The outputs of the refinement of the corridor to define the reference alignment are in the
maps below.
step 1 step 2
Figure 46. Tel Aviv CBD alternatives
Figure 49. M3 corridor before and after optimization
Figure 47. Ramat Gan/Petah Tikva alternatives The new reference alignment was 25.5 km and the route was splitted into 5 geographical
sectors from North to South, and 15 alternatives were defined in total, including the
reference alignment.
56 57
step 3
Figure 51. Hertzliya and North Tel Aviv alternatives
Total length of the

line
A1 (Ref.) 25.5 km 21
Hertzliya A2 27.3 km 23
A3 24.8 km 21
B1 (Ref.) 25.5 km 21
Figure 52. East 1 and East 2 alternatives
North Tel Aviv B2 25.5 km 21
B3 26.8 km 22
C1 (Ref.) 25.5 km 21
East 1 C2 26.4 km 22
C3 28.5 km 23
D1 (Ref.) 25.5 km 21
East 2 D2 27.7 km 24
D3 30.0 km 25
E1 (Ref.) 25.5 km 21
Holon/Bat Yam E2 27.8 km 21
E3 28.6 km 22
Table 11. Summary table of M2 alternatives Figure 53. Holon/Bat Yam alternatives
58 59
4.2.4 Model run 4.3 Step 3: Multicriteria analysis - Basis

Following the definition and validation of the alternative alignments for the 3 lines, series The MCA was the most crucial task towards the selection of a preferred alignment for each
of model run were undertaken for all alternatives in order to feed the Multicriteria Analysis line, with a very broad comparison covering all key aspects of a mass transit project.
(MCA) in terms of traffic forecasts, modal shares and many more indicators related to the 4.3.1 Approach and methodology
public transport network and the impact of the Metro lines over it.
4.3.1.1 Criteria and indicators
The parameters used for the model run were:
The multicriteria analysis (MCA) performed for comparing the alternatives within each
• The defined Metro alignments, sector of each line is based on 7 categories of criteria comprising 37 criteria in overall.
• The other mass transit corridors (LRT and BRT) and the bus network, The categories and criteria were first defined by the project team before discussion
• Israel Railways network, with relevant stakeholders (Tel Aviv District, Centre District, Steering Committee) and
• The population/employment forecasts for 2040, readjustments. The final list of criteria and corresponding indicators is shown below for
each category.
• All major urban developments forecasted for 2040 as per the data collection.
The outputs from the model were part of the key inputs to the MCA.
Figure 54. Summary of all alternatives ran through the model
60 61
4.3.2 Methodology
The first step was to score evaluate all of the 37 abovementioned criteria, which were
given scores between 1 (lowest) and 5 (best).
Scale
meaning
scoring
5 best
4
3
2
1 worst
The second step was to harmonize the subtotals for each of the 7 categories at the same
for a consistent ranking.
In the third step, sensitivity tests were undertaken in order to check how the ranking
changed when applying different combinations of weights between categories.
The subtotals were different due to the numbers of criteria in each category (eg. up to 7
for Urban Context and Network Performance vs. only 2 for Costs/Economic Performance).
For consistency, these subtotals were brought back to a common scale of 100 taking into
account of the number of criteria and allowing to compare all alternatives on the same
basis.
The aggregation of the 7 subtotals gave the Grand total score for each alternative, which
was also brought back to a scale of 100. The outputs were displayed in two steps:
1. Aggregated score for each alternative calculated with a specific weighting giving
more importance to some categories of criteria such as urban context, network
performance, costs and technical issues over environmental criteria which are not
critical for metro infrastructures likely to run mostly underground. Since there can
be numerous weights combinations between key categories, it has been decided
to consider an average between combinations elaborated by all members of the
project team, as shown in the table below.
62 63
MT 4.4 Step 3: Multicriteria analysis - Inputs

Average
Combination Combination Combination Strategic In parallel with the processing of the model data, the alignment alternatives were studied
Groups of criteria weights
1 2 3 Plan through various disciplines which fed the MCA, in particular:
to apply
weights
• Population/employment
Open areas and nature
5% 5% 5% 7% 5,50% • Urban development and land us
values
Impact on population and • Potential land impacts
5% 5% 7% 7% 6,00%
human environment
• Environmental assessment
Urban context and
15% 20% 20% 7% 15,50% • Geological assessment
planning
Social/societal 15% 20% 15% 22% 18,00% These analyses are highlighted in this chapter which show numerous examples of outputs.
Service/network 4.4.1 Population and employment
15% 20% 30% 26% 22,75%
performance and operation
For each line and each alternative, the 2040 forecasts were compared, taking into account
Costs/economic
25% 15% 12% 23% 18,75% the 800m catchment area considered for a Metro line. The figures influenced the scoring.
performance
Technical issues 20% 15% 11% 8% 13,50% 4.4.1.1 M1 alternatives
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% North-West (Raanana branch)
Table 12. Calculation of the average weights used for the MCA grand totals
A1 A2
Section length (km) 10.5 9.7
Section number of stations 7 7
2. Sensitivity tests applying a very high weight of 40% to one of the 5 key categories,
Total line 778,000 758,000
with a parallel reduction of the weight of all other categories proportionally to the Population coverage
Section 83,000 60,000
average weights shown in the above table. The performed sensitivity tests are
detailed below. Employment Total line 546,000 539,000
coverage Section 29,000 20,000
Focus on Focus on
Focus on M3, Rail, BRT Pink
Focus on Service/ Costs/ Focus on Section interconnections M3, BRT Pink line
Urban and Yellow lines
Social/ network economic Technical
context and
societal performance performance issues
planning Table 1. Main alternatives characteristics for North-West sector
and operation
Open areas and nature values 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% North-East (Kfar Saba branch)
Population and human
4% 4% 5% 4% 4%
environment
Urban context and planning 40% 11% 12% 11% 11%
Social/societal 13% 40% 14% 13% 12%
Service/network performance 16% 17% 40% 17% 16%
Costs/economic performance 13% 14% 15% 40% 13%
Technical issues 10% 10% 10% 10% 40%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 13. Combinations of weights used for the 5 sensitivity tests
64 65
North-East (Kfar Saba branch) 4.4.1.2 M2 alternatives

Tel Aviv CBD
B1 B2 B3 B4
Section length (km) 22.5 22.7 20.4 18.1
Section number of stations 19 19 15 12 A1 A2 A3
Population Total line 778,000 812,000 834,000 792,000 Section length (km) 7,500 7,850 8,000
coverage Section 126,000 152,000 174,000 129,000 Section number of stations 6 6 6
Employment Total line 546,000 581,000 614,000 584,000 Population Total line 445,000 436,000 436,000
coverage Section 59,000 91,000 121,000 89,000 coverage Section 104,000 103,000 102,000
Rail; LRT Rail; LRT Rail; LRT Employment Total line 290,000 273,000 300,000
Rail; LRT
Green, Green, Green, coverage Section 145,000 140,000 168,000
Green,
Purple, and Purple, and Purple, and Railways, M1, Railways, M1, Railways, M1,
Section interconnections Purple, and
Red; BRT Red; BRT Red; BRT LRT Purple, Red LRT Purple, Red LRT Purple, Red
Red; BRT Section interconnections
Pink and Pink and Pink and and Green, BRT and Green, BRT and Green, BRT
Yellow
Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow
Table 2. Main alternatives characteristics for North-East sector Table 4. Main alternatives characteristics for the Tel Aviv CBD sector
Tel Aviv CBD Ramat Gan/petah Tikva
C1 C2 C3 B1 B2 B3 B4
Section length (km) 7.2 7.2 9.3 Section length (km) 9,550 9,550 9,800 12,750
Section number of stations 7 7 8 Section number of stations 9 9 9 12
Population Total line 778,000 778,000 861,000 Population Total line 445,000 470,000 481,000 462,000
coverage Section 122,000 126,000 205,000 coverage Section 214,000 236,000 236,000 231,000
Employment Total line 546,000 506,000 602,000 Employment Total line 290,000 321,000 328,000 300,000
Rail, M2, LRT Rail, M2, LRT M3, LRT M3, LRT
Rail, M2, LRT M3, BRT M3, BRT
Green, Purple Green, Purple Section interconnections Purple, BRT Purple, BRT
Section interconnections Green, Purple Yellow Yellow
and Red, BRT and Red, BRT Yellow Yellow
and Red
Yellow and Blue Yellow and Blue
Table 5. Main alternatives characteristics for the central sector
Table 3. Alternatives main characteristics for Tel Aviv Center sector
66 67
East sector (Sirkin/Rosh Hayin) North Tel Aviv
C1 C2 C3 B1 B2 B3 B4
Section length (km) 8,300 9,400 7,500 Section length (km) 3,200 3,200 4,500 12,750
Section number of stations 7 8 7 Section number of stations 4 4 5 12
Population Total line 445,000 444,000 417,000 Population Total line 345,000 345,000 352,000 462,000
Employment Total line 290,000 295,000 282,000 Employment Total line 169,000 170,000 189,000 300,000
Section interconnections None Israel Railways None M3, LRT
LRT Green, LRT Green, LRT Green,
Section interconnections Purple, BRT
Table 6. Alternatives main characteristics for the East sector BRT Yellow BRT Yellow BRT Yellow
Yellow
Table 8. Main alternatives characteristics for North Tel Aviv sector

4.4.1.3 M3 alternatives
Hertzliya sector East 1
C1 C2 C3
A1 A2 A3
Section length (km) 7,850 8,800 10,900
Section number of stations 6 7 8
Population Total line 345,000 300,000 358,000
Population Total line 345,000 344,000 357,000
coverage Section 114,000 69,000 127,000
Employment Total line 169,000 189,000 173,000
Rail, Metro M2,
Railways, M1, Metro M1, LRT Railway, Metro Metro M2, LRT Metro M2, LRT
Section interconnections LRT Red and
Section interconnections LRT Green, BRT Green, BRT M1, LRT Green, Red and Purple Red and Purple
Purple
Yellow Yellow and Pink BRT Yellow
Table 9. Alternatives main characteristics for East 1 sector
Table 7. Main alternatives characteristics for Hertzliya sector
68 69
East 2 4.4.2 Transport demand analysis

The transport demand analysis was based on model outputs and used for the scoring of
D1 D2 D3
a significant number of criteria of the MCA. Here are presented:
• The number of trips for each mode in 2040, giving the best scores for alternatives
Section number of stations 5 8 9 having the highest mass transit figures and the lowest car figures.
Population Total line 345,000 399,000 420,000 • The modal splits, giving the share of each mode within the daily motorized trips.
• The traffic forecasts for each Metro line and each alternative.
Section interconnections LRT Purple LRT Purple LRT Purple Trips per modes
Table 10. Alternatives main characteristics for East 2 sector
Sector Alternative Car Bus Rail MT Total

A1 5,495,775 1,147,353 547,987 1,436,260 8,627,375
North-West
A2 5,496,236 1,149,496 54,548 1,433,253 8,624,466
South B1 5,495,775 1,147,353 547,987 1,436,260 8,627,375
A1 A2 A3 B2 5,494,216 1,147,306 547,795 1,435,125 8,624,443

North-East
B3 5,483,356 1,141,035 543,879 1,456,957 8,625,227
B4 5,494,944 1,152,566 543,783 1,435,482 8,626,775
C1 5,495,775 1,147,353 547,987 1,436,260 8,627,375
Population Total line 345,000 289,000 291,000 Tel Aviv
C2 5,494,457 1,146,197 546,776 1,439,911 8,627,341
coverage Section 137,000 72,000 74,000 CBD
C3 5,493,354 1,143,692 551,944 1,437,623 8,626,613
D1 5,495,775 1,147,353 547,987 1,436,260 8,627,375
coverage Section 27,000 31,000 20,000 Tel Aviv
D2 5,496,940 1,147,944 550,742 1,425,994 8,621,621
Rail, M1, LRT Rail, M1, LRT M1, LRT Green South
Section interconnections D3 5,489,800 1,143,135 547,554 1,445,309 8,625,799
Green and Red Green and Red and Brown
F1 5,495,775 1,147,353 547,987 1,436,260 8,627,375
Table 11. Alternatives main characteristics for southern sector F2 5,494,785 1,148,593 547,428 1,432,954 8,623,760
South-East
F3 5,487,695 1,145,280 543,200 1,447,431 8,623,606
5,487,040 1,146,509 543,592 1,445,883 8,623,024
Table 12. Generated daily trips per mode for all alternatives
70 71
Modal split This table display the model outputs for the North-West alternatives.
The global modal share. It does not vary significantly in the different M1 alternatives. The A1 A2
majority of the trips are done with private cars but the public transport trips account for
more than 40 % of all trips, mostly mass transit modes and bus. Morning peak max 17,900 17,800
M1 load Center: 80,600 Center: 82,300
Daily mean
Branches: 24,600 Branches: 25,600
8.9 Average trip All modes 8.6 min 8.5 min
Bus duration Metro 7.1 min 7.0 min
12.8 Transfer rate
PT 1.86 1.86
Rail MT 1.89 1.9
Car (total) 80,937,000 80,961,000
58.4 Daily veh.km Metro (studied
19.9 Car
section)
100 100
MT
Bus 13,976,000 13,969,000
BRT 9,702,000 9,753,000
Passenger*km
MT 4,618,000 4,603,000
(daily)
Rail 21,828,000 21,806,000
Car 90,114,000 90,141,000
Traffic forecasts Table 13. Traffic forecast comparison for the North-West sector
The map below shows the loads for the reference alignment and all the indicators necessary
This table display the model outputs for the North-West alternatives.
to the multicriteria analysis are then presented and compared for the alternatives of each
sector. B1 B2 B3 B4
Morning peak
17,900 17,900 25,800 25,800
max
M1 load Center: 80,600 Center: 86,900 Center: 96,200 Center: 96,100
Daily mean Branches: Branches: Branches: Branches:
24,600 25,700 31,900 32,200
Average trip All modes 8.6 min 8.5 min 8.3 min 8.4 min
duration Metro 7.1 min 7.1 min 6.8 min 6.8 min
PT 1.86 1.86 1.89 1.89
Transfer rate
MT 1.89 1.89 1.96 1.97
Car (total) 80,937,000 80,941,000 80,830,000 80,946,000
Daily veh.km Metro (studied
230 230 200 180
section)
Bus 13,976,000 13,965,000 13,883,000 13,931,000
BRT 9,702,000 9,776,000 9,986,000 9,791,000
Passenger*km
MT 4,618,000 4,593,000 4,578,000 4,564,000
(daily)
Rail 21,828,000 21,815,000 21,632,000 21,670,000
Figure 56. M1 loads and passenger movements for the reference alignment Car 90,114,000 90,122,000 90,018,000 90,140,000
Table 14. Traffic forecast comparison for North Kfar Saba sector
72 73
This table display the model outputs for the Tel Aviv CBD alternatives. This table display the model outputs for the southern alternatives.
C1 C2 C3 F1 F2 F3 F4
Morning Morning peak
17,900 17,700 19,800 17,900 17,800 18,100 18,000
peak max max
M1 load Center: 80,600 Center: 80,900 Center: 78,300 M1 load Center: 80,600 Center: 80,100 Center: 81,800 Center: 81,300
Daily mean Branches: Branches: Branches: Daily mean Branches: Branches: Branches: Branches:
24,600 24,600 24,400
24,600 24,800 25,300 27,400
Average trip All modes 8.6 min 8.5 8.5
duration Metro 7.1 min 7.0 7.1
PT 1.86 1.86 1.87
Transfer rate PT 1.86 1.85 1.87 1.86
MT 1.89 1.90 1.91 Transfer rate
MT 1.89 1.89 1.91 1.90
Car (total) 80,937,000 80,918,000 80,939,000
Car (total) 80,937,000 80,938,000 80,859,000 80,888,000
Daily veh.km Metro
(studied 140 140 190 Daily veh.km Metro (studied
90 100 110 110
section) section)
Bus 13,976,000 13,957,000 13,927,000 Bus 13,976,000 13,985,000 13,888,000 13,948,000
BRT 9,702,000 9,662,000 10,127,000 BRT 9,702,000 9,732,000 9,936,000 10,112,000
Passenger*km Passenger*km
MT 4,618,000 4,640,000 4,531,000 MT 4,618,000 4,535,000 4,540,000 4,420,000
(daily) (daily)
Rail 21,828,000 21,816,000 21,750,000 Rail 21,828,000 21,861,000 21,794,000 21,827,000
Car 90,114,000 90,089,000 90,117,000 Car 90,114,000 90,114,000 90,031,000 90,057,000
Table 15. Traffic forecast comparison for the North-West sector Table 17. Traffic forecast comparison for South of TAM sector
This table display the model outputs for the South Tel Aviv alternatives.
D1 D2 D3
Morning 17,900 16,700 25,600
peak max
M1 load Center: 80,600 Center: 76,700 Center: 91,900
Daily mean Branches: Branches: Branches:
24,600 25,300 23,800
Average trip 8.6 min 8.6 min 8.6 min 8.5
duration 7.1 min 7.2 min 7.1 min 7.1
1.86 1.85 1.87 1.87
Transfer rate
1.89 1.89 1.91 1.91
80,937,000 80,971,000 80,908,000 80,939,000
Daily veh.km
260 230 300 190
13,976,000 13,990,000 13,976,000 13,927,000
9,702,000 9,407,000 10,515,000 10,127,000
Passenger*km 4,618,000 4,806,000 4,528,000 4,531,000
(daily)
21,828,000 21,927,000 21,533,000 21,750,000
90,114,000 90,149,000 90,092,000 90,117,000
Table 16. Traffic forecast comparison for North Kfar Saba sector
74 75
4.4.2.2 M2 alternatives Traffic forecasts

Trips per modes The map below shows the loads for the reference alignment and all the indicators necessary
Sector Alternative Car Bus Rail MT Total sector.
Tel Aviv / A1 5,054,900 1,123,400 1,323,000 152,900 7,654,100
Givatayim A2 5,056,300 1,126,100 1,320,700 151,800 7,654,900
sector A3 5,055,800 1,125,600 1,320,800 151,400 7,653,600
Ramat Gan B1 5,054,900 1,123,400 1,323,000 152,900 7,654,100
/ Petah B2 5,059,100 1,123,700 1,319,000 152,600 7,654,400
Tikva B3 5,063,500 1,125,100 1,314,800 152,300 7,655,600
sector B4 5,056,700 1,121,200 1,322,600 153,600 7,654,100
Sirkin / C1 5,054,900 1,123,400 1,323,000 152,900 7,654,100
Rosh Hayin C2 5,053,500 1,122,900 1,323,200 154,500 7,654,000
sector C3 5,054,900 1,124,100 1,322,100 153,000 7,654,100
Modal split
Tel Aviv / Givatayim Ramat Gan / Petah Sirkin / Rosh

Sector Global
sector Tikva sector Hayin sector
Zones All zones
Figure 56. M1 loads and passenger movements for the reference alignment
Car (%) 58.4 30.8 37.1 44.3

Bus (%) 12.7 20.5 7.8 11.6
MT (%) 20.0 48.0 53.8 35.2
Rail (%) 8.9 0.7 1.3 8.9
Table 19. Modal share for the reference alignment of the trips between the
highlighted sector and the centre
76 77
This table display the model outputs for the Tel Aviv CBD alternatives. This table display the model outputs for the Sirkin/Rosh Hayin alternatives.
For all alternatives, average trip durations and transfer rates do not vary significantly.
A1 A2 A3
The other figures have small variations among the alternatives: C3 has the lowest load
Morning (both maximum and mean), the lowest mass transit patronage and the highest car veh.
14,500 12,800 12,500
M2 load peak max km, while C1 and C2 has slightly better figures.
Daily mean 37,600 33,700 33,800
Average trip All modes 19.0 min 19.1 min 19.1 min
duration C1 C2 C3
Metro 13.3 min 13.5 min 13.5 min
PT 1.86 1.88 1.88 Morning
Transfer rate 14,500 14,400 14,200
M2 load peak max
MT 1.91 1.95 1.95
Daily mean 37,600 38,000 36,700
Car (total) 80,888,000 80,893,000 80,888,000
Average trip All modes 19.0 min 19.0 min 19.0
Metro
Daily veh.km duration Metro 13.3 min 13.3 min 13.2
(studied 110 120 120
section) PT 1.86 1.86 1.86
Transfer rate
Bus 13,927,000 13,951,000 13,948,000 MT 1.91 1.90 1.9
BRT 10,200,000 10,265,000 10,286,000 Car (total) 80,888,000 80,893,000 80,913,000
Passenger*km Metro
MT 4,518,000 4,684,000 4,690,000 Daily veh.km
(daily) (studied 170 190 150
Rail 21,866,000 21,688,000 21,679,000
section)
Car 90,054,000 90,053,000 90,054,000
Bus 13,927,000 13,911,000 13,951,000
Table 20. Traffic forecast comparison for the Tel Aviv CBD sector BRT 10,200,000 10,272,000 10,048,000
Passenger*km
This table display the model outputs for the Ramat Gan/Petah Tikva alternatives. MT 4,518,000 4,497,000 4,491,000
(daily)
Rail 21,866,000 21,861,000 21,889,000
B1 B2 B3 B4 Car 90,054,000 90,052,000 90,077,000
Morning peak
14,500 13,600 14,100 14,800 Table 22. Traffic forecast comparison for Eastern sector
M2 load max
Daily mean 37,600 38,400 39,000 40,000
PT 1.86 1.87 1.87 1.85
Transfer rate
MT 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.89
Car (total) 80,888,000 80,914,000 80,959,000 80,889,000
Daily veh.km Metro (studied
200 200 200 260
section)
Bus 13,927,000 13,922,000 13,930,000 13,858,000
BRT 10,200,000 10,270,000 10,340,000 10,492,000
Passenger*km
MT 4,518,000 4,465,000 4,413,000 4,400,000
(daily)
Rail 21,866,000 21,852,000 21,851,000 21,909,000
Car 90,054,000 90,061,000 90,114,000 90,050,000
Table 21. Traffic forecast comparison for central sector
78 79
4.4.2.3 M3 alternatives Traffic forecasts

Trips per modes The map below shows the loads for the reference alignment and all the indicators necessary
Sector Alternative Car Bus MT Rail Total sector.
A1 5,076,700 1,142,600 1,283,000 151,600 7,653,800
Hertzliya A2 5,076,600 1,142,000 1,287,400 149,600 7,655,700
A3 5,082,200 1,144,900 1,271,700 154,700 7,653,500
B1 5,076,700 1,142,600 1,283,000 151,600 7,653,800
North Tel
B2 5,076,500 1,142,400 1,283,400 151,500 7,653,700
Aviv
B3 5,074,400 1,140,100 1,289,900 150,900 7,655,400
C1 5,076,700 1,142,600 1,283,000 151,600 7,653,800
East 1 C2 5,064,100 1,136,500 1,303,200 150,400 7,654,100
C3 5,059,400 1,131,500 1,309,300 154,300 7,654,500
D1 5,076,700 1,142,600 1,283,000 151,600 7,653,800
East 2 D2 5,065,900 1,137,300 1,300,400 151,000 7,654,600
D3 5,062,700 1,135,700 1,304,800 150,900 7,654,100
E1 5,076,700 1,142,600 1,283,000 151,600 7,653,800
South E2 5,079,800 1,144,800 1,275,700 154,200 7,654,400
E3 5,077,500 1,145,100 1,276,700 155,200 7,654,600
Modal split
Ramat Gan /
Tel Aviv / Sirkin / Rosh
Sector Global Petah Tikva
Givatayim sector Hayin sector
sector
All
Zones
zones
Car (%) 58.8 31.1 27.7 37.9 36.0

Bus (%) 12.9 26.0 29.0 8.2 8.4
MT (%) 19.4 41.8 42.8 52.5 53.0
Rail (%) 8.9 1.1 0.5 1.4 2.6
Figure 58. M3 loads and passenger movement for the reference alignment
Table 24. Modal share for the reference alignment of the trips between the
highlighted sector and the centre
80 81
This table display the model outputs for the Hertzliya sector alternatives. The highest mean This table display the model outputs for the North Tel Aviv sector alternatives. The size
daily load is reached with the reference alignment, which also has the lowest number of of the sector makes the general traffic characteristics of the alternatives similar. B1 and
car veh.km and car passenger.km. In terms of average trip duration, it is also the best B2 only differ by 1 station. For B3, the additional station and the better coverage induce
alternative. This alignment however has a slightly higher mean transfer rate than A2 and A3. a small load increase. However, the length increase induces more veh.km and a larger
average trip duration for passengers.
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3
10,100 10,000 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100
M3 load peak max M3 load max
Daily mean 36,600 33,000 31,700 Daily mean 36,600 36,900 37,200
Average trip All modes 19.3 min 19.3 min 19.4 min Average trip All modes 19.3 19.2 19.3
duration Metro 13.3 min 13.4 min 13.5 min duration Metro 13.3 13.3 13.4
PT 1.91 1.91 1.90 PT 1.91 1.91 1.91
Transfer rate Transfer rate
MT 2.0 1.99 1.97 MT 2.0 2.0 2.0
Car (total) 81,039,000 81,054,000 81,118,000 Car (total) 81,039,000 81,051,000 81,041,000
Daily veh.km Metro Daily veh.km Metro (studied
(studied 90 120 60 80 80 110
section)
section) Bus 14,080,000 14,087,000 14,068,000
Bus 14,080,000 14,126,000 14,131,000 BRT 10,042,000 10,044,000 10,194,000
BRT 10,042,000 10,061,000 9,871,000 Passenger*km
Passenger*km MT 4,428,000 4,429,000 4,414,000
MT 4,428,000 4,430,000 4,520,000 (daily)
(daily) Rail 21,856,000 21,853,000 21,850,000
Rail 21,856,000 21,894,000 21,934,000 Car 90,196,000 90,211,000 90,205,000
Car 90,196,000 90,212,000 90,276,000
Table 26. Traffic forecast comparison for North Tel Aviv sector
Table 25. Traffic forecast comparison for Hertzliya sector
82 83
This table display the model outputs for the East 1 sector alternatives. C2 is better with a This table display the model outputs for the East 2 sector alternatives. The 3 alternatives
higher morning peak maximum and higher daily mean, and also the lowest average trip have close figures. For passenger.km, although D1 has more MT passenger.km, its number
duration. C3 has lower metro load figures but is the best in terms of transfer rate and car of car passenger.km is also higher due to a lower usage of the BRT. D2 and D3 are close.
usage.
C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3
10,100 11,100 8,000 10,100 10,800 11.000
M3 load peak max M3 load max
Daily mean 36,600 37,700 31,800 Daily mean 36,600 36,900 34,600
Average trip All modes 19.3 19.1 19.2 Average trip All modes 19.3 19.0 19.0
duration Metro 13.3 13.3 13.4 duration Metro 13.3 13.2 13.3
PT 2.0 2.01 1.93 PT 2.0 2.01 2.01
Transfer rate Transfer rate
MT 1.91 1.91 1.87 MT 1.91 1.92 1.91
Car (total) 81,039,000 80,946,000 80,893,000 Car (total) 81,039,000 80,945,000 80,925,000
Metro Daily veh.km Metro (studied
Daily veh.km 80 120 170
(studied 160 180 220 section)
section) Bus 14,080,000 13,993,000 13,933,000
Bus 14,080,000 13,987,000 13,896,000 BRT 10,042,000 10,557,000 10,694,000
BRT 10,042,000 10,215,000 10,518,000 Passenger*km
MT 4,428,000 4,174,000 4,194,000
Passenger*km (daily)
MT 4,428,000 4,374,000 4,413,000 Rail 21,856,000 21,842,000 21,858,000
(daily)
Rail 21,856,000 21,834,000 21,823,000 Car 90,196,000 90,099,000 90,076,000
Car 90,196,000 90,113,000 90,047,000
Table 28. Traffic forecast comparison for East 2 sector
Table 27. Traffic forecast comparison for East 1 sector
84 85
This table display the model outputs for the South sector alternatives. 4.4.3 Urban development and land use
In this sector, the reference alignment has better traffic figures than the 2 other alternatives: Based on the numerous data collected in Phase 1 and on the expertise of the team, a
although it has the shortest length, its daily mean load in M3 is significantly higher than the thorough urban analysis of the 2040 horizon was provided for all alternatives of each line,
load of E2 and E3. It also allows a shorter commute in average, as its mean trip durations particularly focusing on:
are slightly lower. • Land use in the areas potentially served by the Metro, particularly in the comprehensive
The observation of the southern part of the line for the 3 alternatives shows that the load local outline plans collected from the municipalities.
is the highest in the reference alignment, in both directions. • Development areas, mega projects and points of interests located within the 800m
catchment area of each alternative.
For these 2 items feeding the MCA, the work is here summarized with a mapping.
E1 E2 E3
Morning
10,100 10,000 9,900 Land use and statutory aspects
M3 load peak max
Daily mean 36,600 33,800 30,800 The 4 maps below give an overview of the expected land status in 2040 according to the
All modes 19.3 19.3 19.4 comprehensive local outline plans for each of the sectors covered by the alternatives of
Average trip
M1.
duration Metro 13.3 13.5 13.6
PT 2.0 1.99 1.97
Transfer rate
MT 1.91 1.9 1.89
Car (total) 81,039,000 81,090,000 81,041,000
Daily veh.km Metro
(studied 80 120 130
section)
Bus 14,080,000 14,100,000 14,087,000
BRT 10,042,000 10,019,000 9,819,000
Passenger*km
MT 4,428,000 4,505,000 4,684,000
(daily)
Rail 21,856,000 21,861,000 21,868,000
Car 90,196,000 90,248,000 90,193,000
Table 29. Traffic forecast comparison for South sector
Figure 59. Comprehensive Local Outline Plans in the North sector
86 87
Figure 61. Comprehensive Local Outline Plans for the Tel Aviv South sector
Figure 60. Comprehensive Local Outline Plans for the Tel Aviv CBD sector
Figure 62. Comprehensive Local Outline Plans for the South of TAM sector
88 89
Identification of new development areas

The 4 maps below identify the approved and planned development areas along the
alternatives in each sector. Some plans in a standard statutory process and some through
the preferred housing committee.
Figure 65. Points of Interest and new developments in Tel Aviv CBD and South Tel Aviv sectors
Figure 64. Points of Interest and new development areas in the North area of M1
90 Figure 66. Points of Interest and new developments in South-West and South-East sectors
91
4.4.3.2 M2 alternatives Identification of new development areas

Land use and statutory aspects The maps below identify the approved and planned development areas along the
The maps below give an overview of the expected land status in 2040 according to the alternatives in each sector. Some plans in a standard statutory process and some through
comprehensive local outline plans for each of the sectors covered by the alternatives of M2. the preferred housing committee.
Figure 66. Tel Aviv CBD sector Land Use Map
Figure 70. Points of Interest and new developments in the Tel Aviv CBD sector
Figure 67. Ramat Gan/Petah Tikva sector Land Use Map
Figure 71. Points of Interest and new developments in the Ramat Gan/Petah Tikva sector
Figure 68. Sirkin/Rosh Hayin sector Land Use Map (in black)
92 93
Figure 72. Points of Interest and new developments in the Sirkin/Rosh Hayin sector
Figure 75. East 1 sector Land Use Map

Land use and statutory aspects
The maps below give an overview of the expected land status in 2040 according to the
comprehensive local outline plans for each of the sectors covered by the alternatives of M3.
Figure 76. East 2 sector Land Use Map
Figure 73. Hertzliya sector Land Use Map
Figure 77. South sector Land Use Map
Figure 74. North Tel Aviv sector Land Use Map
94 95
Identification of new development areas

The maps below identify the approved and planned development areas along the
alternatives in each sector. Some plans in a standard statutory process and some through
the preferred housing committee.
Figure 81. Points of Interest and new developments in East 2 sector
Figure 78. Points of Interest and new developments in Hertzliya sector
Figure 82. Points of Interest and new developments in South sector
Figure 79. Points of Interest and new developments in North Tel Aviv sector
Figure 80. Points of Interest and new developments in East 1 sector
96 97
4.4.4 Right-of-way and land impacts 4.4.4.2 In open/green areas

For each sector/alternative of each line, the potential land acquisition were compared in An identification of all potential land takes within open and green areas along each route
terms of length of alignment (no surface at this stage) through sensitive zones: has been undertaken.
• Urbanized areas, with potential impact on buildings and private plots Example from M2 (Sirkin/Rosh Hayin sector)
• Green areas with potential environmental impact or at least property issues
In each sector, the corresponding length was brought back to the length of the alternative,
allowing to compare the alternatives each other and calculate scores for the MCA.
4.4.4.1 In urbanized areas Alternative C1
It is assumed that land take is required when: • Total length: 8.3km
• The alignment is crossing plots outside of public space/roads, e.g. in transition curves, • Length through green/open areas: 1.2km
sections where there are no existing road, etc.
• Share: 14.2%
• Besides stations (which require more space) the available right-of-way of existing roads is
less than 27m from side to side, assuming that 27m is the minimum for accommodating
a viaduct or the footprint of a tunnel.
Example from M1 (Tel Aviv CBD sector)
Figure 84. Potential land take in green areas – C1
Alternative C1 Alternative C2
• Total length: 7.7km • Total length: 7.8km
• Length through built areas: 0.3km • Length through built areas: 1.6km
• Share: 4% • Share: 20.2%
Alternative C2
• Total length: 9.4km
• Length through green/open areas: 1km
• Share: 10.6%
Figure 85. Potential land take in green areas – C2
Figure 83. Potential land take in built Figure 84. Potential land take in built
areas - C1 areas - C2
98 99
4.4.5 Environmental assessment of alternatives 4.4.5.2 Streams and surface waters

For the purpose of the MCA, all alternatives alignments were analysed in regards to their elow examples for the North-West sector of M1 (alternatives A1 and A2) and Tel Aviv CBD
potential impacts on the environment, with a particular focus on the 4 following aspects: sector of M2. The analysis took into account primary and secondary rivers (ex. Hayarkon
• Natural elements and sensitive areas along the alternatives and tributaries) as well as the corresponding overflowing areas where relevant.
• Streams and surface waters potentially involved

• Polluted areas along the alternatives
• Heritage areas and in particular archaeological sites along the alternatives
Most of MCA criteria were scored according to the length of alignment across these kind of
areas, the number of specific sites potentially impacted, etc.
The main outputs from the environmental studies were mappings, and examples are shown
below for each thematic.
4.4.5.1 Natural environment and sensitive areas
Below an example for the North-West sector of M1 (alternatives A1 and A2). The analysis took
into account sensitive areas such as rivers, existing and planned nature reserves, National
parks and Metropolitan parks, as well as forests and other recreation areas.
Figure 88. M1 North-West branch on the map of rivers and streams from TAMA 34/B/3
Figure 87. M1 North-West branch alternatives on the map of open areas
Figure 89. M2 Tel Aviv CBD on the map of overflowing area and streams from TAMA 34/B/3
100 101
4.4.5.3 Suspected pollution 4.4.5.4 Heritage areas and archaeological sites

Below 2 examples from M2 and M1. The analysis took into account the groundwater Below an example from M1 (South Tel Aviv sector). The analysis took into account the official
pollution areas identified by the Water Authority, the existing industrial areas identified in zoning of archaeological sites and other heritage sites. It allowed to identify the sensitive
the Central District and the soil pollution (oil and gas) identified in the Tel Aviv District. areas crossed by each alternative and to estimate roughly the corresponding length.
Figure 90. M2 Ramat Gan/Petah Tikva sector on the map of suspected soil and
groundwater pollution
Figure 92. M1 South of Tel Aviv sector on the map of heritage and archaeological sites
Figure 91. M1 North-East alternatives on the map of suspected soil and groundwater pollution
102 103
4.4.6 Environmental assessment of alternatives M2 mapping

All lines and alternatives were analysed in regards to the soil conditions identified along
their route. Based on the geological/geotechnical data collected in Phase 1, it was observed
that all the Metro lines are running across 4 typical types of layers/soils:
• Alluvium clayey soil (Al),
• Red sandy soils (Qh),
• Calcareous sandstone (Qk)
• Sand dunes (Qs).
The main criteria chosen for the MCA scoring was the length and percentage of alignment
within alluvial clay, considered as the less favourable soil in terms of geotechnical
characteristics.
The groundwaters and potential impacts of the Metro were also taken into account for a Figure 94. M2-All Alternatives on geological map
scoring based the length and percentage of each alternative within groundwater areas.
4.4.6.1 Soil conditions
The maps below show the superimposition of all Metro line alternatives with the geological
map (published by GII) allowing to identify the sections through alluvial clay.
M1 mapping M3 mapping
Figure 93. M1-All Alternatives on geological map Figure 95. M3-All Alternatives on geological map
104 105
4.4.6.2 Groundwater areas M2 mapping

The maps below show the superimposition of all Metro lines alternatives with the
groundwater level map (based on Israel Water Authority maps, 2014) allowing to identify
the sections through the groundwater areas.
M1 mapping
Figure 97. M2-All Alternatives on groundwater level map
M3 mapping
106 107
4.5 Step 3: Multicriteria analysis - Results 4.5.1.2 North-East alternatives

Following the modelling results and the detailed investigations for each alternatives, The re-scaled grand totals and aggregated scores calculated with a similar weight for each
the scorings were calculated for all criteria and the results processed as per the method category are displayed in the table below. B1 is particularly better than other alternatives
previously explained. This allowed to provide a ranking of the alternatives for each sector in aspects such as costs (optimized length of the central section and branches) and
and to make recommendations for the preferred alignment of each line. implementation (less engineering constraints).
4.5.1 MCA results for M1
4.5.1.1 North-West alternatives Categories of criteria B1 B2 B3 B4
1. Open areas and nature values 60 56 48 44
The re-scaled grand totals and aggregated scores calculated with a similar weight for each
category are displayed in the table below. It shows that A1 clearly performs better in all aspects. 2. Human environment 70 67 60 47
3. Urban context and planning 57 71 66 57
Categories of criteria A1 A2 4. Social/societal 63 70 77 63
5. Service/network performance and operation 66 74 80 74
1. Open areas and nature values 68 56
6. Costs/economic performance 70 30 30 40
2 Human environment 63 60
7. Implementation issues 76 64 52 36
3. Urban context and planning 63 57
Aggregated scores 66 62 59 52
4. Social/societal 67 60
5. Service/network performance and operation 63 60
The following table shows the variation of the aggregated scores and ranking resulting
6. Costs/economic performance 70 50 from 5 sensitivity tests.
7. Implementation issues 76 64
Aggregated scores 67 58
Weights combinations B1 B2 B3 B4
Focus on costs and technical 67 59 57 51
from 5 sensitivity tests. Focus on urban, social and network performance 66 63 62 55
Focus on network performance 65 65 65 57
Weights combinations A1 A2 MT Strategic Plan weights 66 60 61 56
Focus on costs and technical 68 58 Average of all weights 66 62 61 55
Focus on urban, social and network performance 67 58
Focus on network performance 66 58
MT Strategic Plan weights 67 58
Average of all weights 67 58
B1 is the best alignment.
A1 is the best alignment.
108 109
4.5.1.3 Tel Aviv CBD alternatives 4.5.1.4 South of Tel Aviv alternatives
The re-scaled grand totals and aggregated scores calculated with a similar weight for The re-scaled grand totals and aggregated scores calculated with a similar weight for
each category are displayed in the table below. Although C1 performs better regarding each category are displayed in the table below. It show that D1 performs better in most
implementation constraints, C2 would have more benefits in terms of network efficiency of the key aspects, particularly in terms of service of strategic urban areas (H500 in Holon,
and operation (outputs of the transport model) and would be less costly due to its passage etc.), network efficiency and relatively low engineering constraints compared with the 2
to the east of the Ayalon corridor. alternatives. D2 only performs better regarding costs.
Categories of criteria C1 C2 C3 Categories of criteria D1 D2 D3

1. Open areas and nature values 72 72 76 1. Open areas and nature values 68 52 76
2. Human environment 73 67 73 2. Human environment 80 53 77
3. Urban context and planning 67 70 83 3. Urban context and planning 67 53 53
4. Social/societal 63 60 73 4. Social/societal 60 57 67
5. Service/network performance and operation 60 66 49 5. Service/network performance and operation 54 54 71
6. Costs/economic performance 70 90 50 6. Costs/economic performance 70 90 60
7. Implementation issues 76 64 60 7. Implementation issues 68 52 56
Aggregated scores 69 70 66 Aggregated scores 67 59 66
from 5 sensitivity tests.
Weights combinations C1 C2 C3
Weights combinations D1 D2 D3
Focus on costs and technical 68 72 63
Focus on costs and technical 66 63 63
Focus on urban, social and network performance 67 69 65
Focus on urban, social and network performance 64 59 63
Focus on network performance 66 69 64
Focus on network performance 63 58 65
MT Strategic Plan weights 66 71 61
MT Strategic Plan weights 64 63 66
Average of all weights 67 70 63
Average of all weights 64 61 64
C1 was initially recommended as it provided a better access to the CBD despite lower
scores. Further Steering Committee arbitration led to select C2 and the east of the D1 selected as the best alignment.
Ayalon corridor, shifting the interchange M1/M2 at Hashalom East (Yigal Alon boulevard).
110 111
4.5.1.5 South-East alternatives 4.5.2 MCA outputs for M2

The re-scaled grand totals and aggregated scores calculated with a similar weight for each category 4.5.2.1 Tel Aviv CBD sector alternatives
are displayed in the table below. There is no significant hierarchy between the 3 best alternatives The re-scaled subtotals and the aggregated scores including the average weights for all
(F1, F3, F4) but it can be noted that F4 performs better in terms of human environment (less categories are displayed in the table below. It is obvious that A1 scores better in all aspects
constraints) and mostly social/societal aspects such as population and employment coverage except environment and technical constraints, in particular with a very good performance in
and indicators score through the transport model (transfer rate, trip duration). urban potential (outstanding projects) and network performance/social criteria evaluated
with the help of the transport model.
Categories of criteria F1 F2 F3 F4
1. Open areas and nature values 80 80 72 80 Categories of criteria A1 A2 A3
2. Human environment 60 67 70 73
1. Open areas and nature values 80 88 84
2. Human environment 73 67 63
4. Social/societal 63 73 77 83
3. Urban context and planning 70 63 66
4. Social/societal 63 43 53
5. Service/network performance and operation 77 54 57
7. Implementation issues 60 56 56 60
6. Costs/economic performance 70 70 70
Aggregated scores 67 65 69 71
7. Technical issues 60 52 68
The following table shows the variation of the aggregated scores and ranking resulting Aggregated score 70 59 63
Weights combinations F1 F2 F3 F4
from the 5 sensitivity tests.
Focus on costs and technical 67 62 67 68
Focus on urban, social and network performance 67 64 69 70 Sensitivity Tests A1 A2 A3
Focus on network performance 67 64 71 71 40% Urban context and planning 70 60 64
MT Strategic Plan weights 67 62 71 71 40% Social/societal 68 55 61
Average of all weights 67 63 69 70 40% Service/network performance and operation 71 58 62
The poor scores of alternative F2 lead to assume that scores of F4 would be higher in case 40% Costs/economic performance 70 62 65
it would not share the same alignment with D2 towards Ramle center. 40% Technical issues 67 57 65
Figure 98. Concept for readjustment of F4 alternative A1 is the best alignment.
Taking into account the scores and traffic forecasts, the selected option was eventually to
combine sections F1 and F4 alignments and having an alignment ending in Lod.
112 113
4.5.2.2 Central sector alternatives 4.5.2.3 East sector alternatives

The re-scaled subtotals and the aggregated scores including the average weights for all categories The re-scaled grand totals and aggregated scores calculated with a similar weight for each
are displayed in the table below. This show that B1 and B2 are by far the most relevant alternatives, category are displayed in the table below. C2 performed significantly well on the urban
B1 being the best regarding network performance (traffic forecasts, etc.) and low technical planning context (service of new development areas in the North of Sirkin and in Rosh Hayin),
constraints, while B2 has more potential regarding urban projects and slightly lower cost estimates. and network efficiency (traffic forecasts and potential intermodality with Israel Railways).
Categories of criteria B1 B2 B3 B4
Categories of criteria C1 C2 C3
1. Open areas and nature values 88 88 84 84
2. Human environment 93 87 77 90
4. Social/societal 67 73 70 73
7. Technical issues 80 64 60 68
Aggregated score 73 72 67 60
Aggregated score 71 71 71
from the 5 sensitivity tests. The following table shows the variation of the aggregated scores and ranking resulting
Sensitivity Tests B1 B2 B3 B4
40% Urban context and planning 68 68 63 58 Sensitivity Tests C1 C2 C3
40% Social/societal 71 72 68 63 40% Urban context and planning 69 71 69
40% Service/network performance and operation 74 71 65 62 40% Social/societal 72 74 68
40% Costs/economic performance 72 74 70 50 40% Service/network performance and operation 71 73 70
40% Technical issues 75 69 65 62 40% Costs/economic performance 70 68 79
The poor scores of alternative F2 lead to assume that scores of F4 would be higher in case 40% Technical issues 69 69 68
it would not share the same alignment with D2 towards Ramle center.
C2 was selected as the preferred alignment in the East sector, particularly for
Figure 99. Combination B1/B2
the connection with Israel Railways and the service of the employment area of
Better scoring for B1 but the arbitration lead to introduce a combination between B1 for North Rosh Hayin.
the west part and B2 for the east part in Petah Tikva.
114 115
4.5.3 MCA outputs for M3 A1 is the best alignment, but arbitration in favour of the service of Hertzliya Marina
4.5.3.1 North sector alternatives and connection with Israel railways in Hertzliya, leading to develop and select a
readjusted version of A2.
The re-scaled subtotals and the aggregated scores including the average weights for all categories
are displayed in the table below. While A3 performed poorly in terms of urban potential and 4.5.3.2 North Tel Aviv sector alternatives
traffic forecasts and other model outputs, A1 generally had best scores than A2 in many aspects: The re-scaled subtotals and the aggregated scores including the average weights for
urban planning and traffic in particular, as well as cost (shorter route than A2 initially).
all categories are displayed in the table below. B2 made a major difference with the
technical issues (largely less narrow roads and insertion constraints than B2 and B3) and
Categories of criteria A1 A2 A3
corresponding cost estimates.
3. Urban context and planning 73 57 70 Categories of criteria B1 B2 B3
4. Social/societal 47 60 50 1. Open areas and nature values 96 96 84
5. Service/network performance and operation 77 60 51 2. Human environment 87 83 73
6. Costs/economic performance 70 40 90 3. Urban context and planning 53 53 67
7. Technical issues 76 80 64 4. Social/societal 53 50 67
Overall scores 70 60 60 5. Service/network performance and operation 66 63 60
The following table shows the variation of the aggregated scores and ranking resulting 6. Costs/economic performance 70 90 50
from 5 sensitivity tests. 7. Technical issues 88 100 84
Overall scores 68 72 66
Sensitivity tests A1 A2 A3
40% Urban context and planning 71 59 67 The following table shows the variation of the aggregated scores and ranking resulting
40% Social/societal 64 60 62 from 5 sensitivity tests.
40% Service/network performance and operation 71 60 63
Sensitivity tests B1 B2 B3
40% Costs/economic performance 70 54 72
40% Urban context and planning 64 67 66
40% Technical issues 72 66 66
40% Social/societal 64 66 66
Figure 100. A2 readjusted
A1 is the best alignment, but arbitration in favour of the service of Hertzliya Marina and
connection with Israel railways in Raanana, leading to develop and select a readjusted
version of A2.
B2 is the best alignment.
116 117
4.5.3.3 East 1 sector alternatives 4.5.3.4 East 2 sector alternatives

The re-scaled subtotals and the aggregated scores including the average weights for all The re-scaled subtotals and the aggregated scores including the average weights for all
categories are displayed in the table below. C1 performed better in urban context, costs categories are displayed in the table below. Although shortest and theoretically less costly,
and technical constraints assuming that an insertion in the right-of-way of the Road 4 was D1 was strongly penalized by its poor scores in social aspects, network performance
feasible. C3 was too constrained by its much higher length and corresponding cost. (duplication with the LRT Purple Line and lower traffic forecasts) and overall technical issues
related to the absence of existing roads for a part of its route, also involving accessibility
Categories of criteria C1 C2 C3 issues. In comparison D2 scored much better in key aspects: urban potential of the route,
1. Open areas and nature values 68 72 64 traffic forecasts and technical feasibility. D3 was penalized by the absence of service of a
major equipment (Tel Hashomer Hospital) and its excessive length and cost.
Categories of criteria D1 D2 D3
The following table shows the variation of the aggregated scores and ranking resulting 6. Costs/economic performance 70 40 20
from 5 sensitivity tests. 7. Technical issues 28 80 80
Sensitivity tests C1 C2 C3
40% Urban context and planning 70 66 67 The following table shows the variation of the aggregated scores and ranking resulting
40% Service/network performance and operation 66 67 64 Sensitivity tests D1 D2 D3
Advantage C1 but due to uncertain technical feasibility along the Road 4 corridor and
absence of direct connection with the Petah Tikva branch of the Red Line, this alternative
was discarded and C2 was eventually selected with adjustments such as the service of
Beilinson Hospital.
D2 is the best alignment, to be optimized in further stage (Phase 5) to improve

118 the service of Tel Hashomer Hospital. 119
4.5.3.5 South sector alternatives 4.6 Step 4: final network configuration

The re-scaled subtotals and the aggregated scores including the average weights for all 4.6.1 Context
categories are displayed in the table below. E1, having the shortest and most central route
from an urban point of view scored the best in all aspects except urban potential (already For the Step 4, the MCA outputs were presented to the Steering Committee for arbitration:
a dense area and therefore less potential projects than E2 and E3. • Discussions to support the recommended alignments for the North part of M1, with a
deepened comparison versus the B3 alternative that was pushed by some stakeholders,
Categories of criteria E1 E2 E3 • Discussions regarding the remaining dilemmas for some alternatives in M2 and M3, as
1. Open areas and nature values 68 68 68 seen in the MCA outputs,
2. Human environment 77 60 60 • Checking the overall consistency of the network, particularly the connections between
3. Urban context and planning 57 63 63 the 3 Metro lines and with the other mass transit modes (LRT, Israel Railways)
4. Social/societal 57 57 53 • Eventually validation of a final network configuration prior to launch the Phase 5 studies.
The present chapter summarizes the investigations undertaken to define the final changes
to the configuration of the Metro network. These investigations were based on debates on
7. Technical issues 84 56 68 alignments raised during Steering Committee meetings.
4.6.2 Final configuration
The following changes were discussed during Steering Committee meetings and were later
studied and confirmed after comparative analysis.
4.6.2.1 M1: service of Hertzliya IDC
Sensitivity tests E1 E2 E3 This modification followed a request from the Tel Aviv District to serve the Interdisciplinary
College of Hertzliya, despite it being away from the chosen alignment serving the city
centers of Hertzliya and Raanana.
Figure 101. Initial M1 alignment and modification through IDC in Hertzliya

E1 is the best alignment.
120 121
4.6.2.2 M1: shift from Glilot to Kiryat Shaul The characteristics of this extension are:
The background was the request from the Tel Aviv District to shift the M1 alignment away from • Additional length: 3.3km (final M2 length 29km)
Glilot (initial decision based on urban planning and interchange potential with M3) and consider a • 2 additional stations: Nes Lagoyim and Wolfson Hospital
straighter route through Kiryat Shaul cemetery, where the connection with M3 would move as well.
• Wolfson Hospital station on the East side of the Ayalon expressway, adjacent to Edith
Wolfson Medical Centre.
4.6.2.4 M3: service of Beilinson Hospital
While the initially selected alignment for M3 had a relatively straight route between Kiryat
Arye and Bar Ilan University, the Steering Committee decided to make a detour to the East
in order to serve Beilinson Hospital.
Figure 102. Initial M1 alignment and requested modification through Kiryat Shaul
4.6.2.3 M2 extension to Wolfson

The Steering Committee decision was to extend M2 to the South of Tel Aviv between
Shlavim (end of the line in the initial configuration) and Wolfson Hospital.
Figure 104. M3 alignment change through Beilinson Hospital
Figure 103. M2 extension from Shlavim to Wolfson
122 123
4.6.2.5M3: Bar Ilan/Kiryat Ono areas The principles considered and discussed for this Airport link are as follows:
The Steering Committee decision was to move the M3 alignment to provide service to • Length around 4km (to be confirmed precisely according to necessary inputs data such
Kiryat Ono and the west of Petah Tikva, instead of Bar Ilan University which is already as land availability for Airport station and various constraints),
served by M2. • Shuttle service between Bikat Ono and Airport Terminal 3, no intermediate stop,
allowing a very attractive commercial speed,
• Independent from M3 with an optimal connection in Bikat Ono for very short transfer
(side by side or superimposed platforms, as seen in such as Singapore Green line, Paris-
Orly Airport shuttle).
4.6.2.7 Final network configuration for Phase 5
The figure below shows the network configuration taking into account the changes depicted
above.
Figure 105. Initial M3 alignment and requested modification through Kiryat Ono
4.6.2.6 Airport link

The background of this addition to the initial scope of the network is the short distance
observed between M3 in Or Yehuda and Ben Gourion Airport. Indeed, there is around 4km
between Bikat Ono station of M3 and the main terminal of the Airport (terminal 3), which
creates an unexpected opportunity to link the Metro network to the main international
gateway of Israel at a relatively reasonable cost.
Figure 107. Modified Metro network configuration
Lines Total Total

M1 74,0 km 55
M2 29,0 km 26
M3 35,6 km 27
Airport Link (TBC) 4,0 km 2
Total 142,5 km 110
Table 30. Lengths and stations summary – Modified configuration
Figure 106. M3/Airport link principle
124 125
The 2 plans below summarizes all the work undertaken in Phase 4, from the definition of
numerous alternatives for each Metro line towards the preferred 3 alignments selected at
the end of the process for further study in Phase 5.
In the background, the initial corridors from the Mass Transit Strategic Plan are visible in
dotted lines.
Figure 108. From Strategic Plans and alignment alternatives to the final configuration
126
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.1 Process • Relocation of the maintenance depot of M2 from the initially selected site in North-East
Based on the network configuration selected at the end of the Phase 4, as well as the Petah Tikva to Rosh Hayin, following a request from the Centre District.
design criteria issued in Phase 3, detailed studies were undertaken in Phases 5 and 6 for
completing the Metro feasibility. These studies covered the following areas:
• Detailed alignment of the 3 lines: horizontal and vertical alignments, cross sections
• Stations studies: urban context planning, sizing principles and examples, design of 3
typical stations (elevated, underground, interchange)
• Depots studies: choice of sites, sizing and functional layouts for each line
• Preliminary Operation Plan for defining all the service characteristics such as headway,
commercial speed, fleet sizing, etc.
• Preliminary Maintenance Plan
• Sizing of the needs for power supply
• Cost estimates for investment (CAPEX) and operation (OPEX)
• Initial Park and Ride study: sites selection, basic sizing, design principles
• Analysis of the option to incorporate exterior utilities in Metro tunnels
• Implementation schedule for the whole Metro project
• Scenarios for expansion of the Mass Transit network beyond 2040 with new
infrastructures. Figure 110. Locations of current (1) and future (3) depots sites of M2
5.2 Exclusions
• Feasibility study of the Airport link connecting M3 in Or Yehuda and the Terminal 3 of
All aspects of the Feasibility Studies are covered here, except the following 3 tasks:
Ben Gourion Airport, recent addition to the scope of the study.
• Final update of M1 in order to reflect configuration changes requested at the end of the
Phase 5, which shall include route changes in Hod Hasharon (North-West branch) and
Beer Yaakov/Ramle area (South-East branch) involving new alignment and different
stations locations.
Figure 109. Potential M1 change in Ramle (schematic, not confirmed)

Figure 111. Conceptual view of the Metro Airport link
128 129
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.3 Final traffic forecasts

Indicators Value
5.3.1 Full network
All modes 17.1 min
Average trip duration
MT 11.6 min
PT 1.89
Transfer rate
MT 1.94
Bus and BRT 996,000
MT 2,115,000
Passengers*km
Rail 328,000
Car 5,937,000
M1 23,350
M2 19,800
M3 12,300
PPHPD
LRT Red 7,800
LRT Green 4,350
LRT Purple 5,950
Figure 113. Metro loads at morning peak hour
5.3.2 M1
Based on the outputs of the Tel Aviv transport model run of the full Metro + LRT + rail
network, the maximum traffic in the morning peak hour for the M1 is 23,350 passengers
per hour and direction, as illustrated in the diagram below. This figure was then used for
defining the headway, length of trains and size of fleet as part of the Preliminary Operation
Plan.
Figure 112. Metro loads at morning peak hour
This figure of 23,350 is used for defining the headway, length of trains and size of fleet as
part of the Preliminary Operation Plan.
130 131
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.3.3 M2 5.4 Alignment studies

Based on the outputs of the Tel Aviv transport model run of the full Metro + LRT + rail This task was to produce detailed alignment for each line and deliver it as full layouts of
network, the maximum traffic in the morning peak hour for the M2 is 19,800 passengers both horizontal and vertical alignments, and corresponding cross sections. The present
per hour and direction, as illustrated in the diagram below. chapter provides a summary at the scale of the full lines only.
5.4.1 Alignment studies M1
5.4.1.1 General view and characteristics
Characteristics
5.3.4 M3
• Length: 74.1 km
Based on the outputs of the Tel Aviv transport model run of the full Metro + LRT + rail
• 100%
network, the maximum traffic in the morning peak hour for the M2 is 12,300 passengers
undeground
per hour and direction, as illustrated in the diagram below.
• Total stations: 55
Figure 113. Overall view M1
132 133
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
SECTION NUMBER STATION INTERCHANGE SECTION NUMBER STATION INTERCHANGE

Raanana North 33 Holon Sokolov
1 34 Holon Centre Metro M3
Employment Centre Central section
2 Raanana Atidim 35 Holon H500 North
3 Raanana Centre 36 Ramat Eliyahu
North-West branch 37 Bnot Khil
4 Raanana Rail Station Israel Railways
5 Hertzliya IDC 38 Rishon Letzion Centre
6 Hertzliya Centre 39 Rishonim Israel Railways
7 Hertzliya Ben Gourion 40 Givat Hator
8 Kfar Saba East 41 Nes Tziona Centre
9 Kfar Saba Alkalai Nes Tziona Science
South-West branch 42
10 Kfar Saba Centre Employment Park
Rehovot Weizman
11 Kfar Saba Weizman 43 Israel Railways
Institute
12 Meir Hospital
44 Rehovot Centre
North-East branch 13 Kfar Malal
45 Rehovot Hakibutsim
14 Hod Hasharon Centre
46 Rehovot Kaplan Hospital
Hod Hasharon
15 47 Hamaccabim-Freiman
Hahachsharot
16 Taas Hasharon East 48 Yosef Burg
Taas Hasharon West 49 Asaf Harofe Hospital LRT Brown
18 Ramat Hasharon Sokolov 50 Tzrifin Plan
19 Ramat Hasharon Hasaraf South-East branch 51 Beer Yaakov Eliyahu
20 Kiryat Shaul Metro M3 52 Ramle Neve David Israel Railways
21 KKL 53 Ramle Centre Israel Railways
22 Tel Aviv University LRT Green 54 Lod Yerushalayim
23 Aviv Base LRT Green 55 Lod Centre
24 Hayarkon River Table 47. Detailed list of stations M1
25 Namir-Pinkas
LRT Red + LRT Purple +
Central section 26 Tel Aviv 2000
Israel Railways
Metro M2 + Israel
27 Hashalom Station
Railways
28 Yad Eliyahu Arena
LRT Purple + Israel
29 Haagana Station
Railways
30 Kiryat Shalom
LRT Green + Israel
31 Holon Junction
Railways
32 Mikve Israel
134 135
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.4.2 Alignment studies M2 5.4.3 Alignment studies M3

5.4.2.1 General view and characteristics 5.4.3.1 General view and characteristics
Characteristics
• Length: 29 km
• Length underground: 24.9 km
• Length elevated: 4.1 km
• Total stations: 26 Characteristics
• Underground stations: 23 • Length: 36 km
• Elevated stations: 3 • 100%
underground
• Total stations: 27
Figure 114. Overall view M2
SECTION NUMBER STATION INTERCHANGE

1 Wolfson Hospital Israel Railways
2 Nes Lagoyim
3 Shlavim
4 Neve Tzedek
5 Hacarmel LRT Purple Line
6 Ibn Gvirol LRT Green Line
7 Sarona
Metro M1 + Israel
8 Hashalom Station
Railways
9 Givatayim Katzenelson
10 Givatayim Ben Gourion
Full line Figure 115. Overall view M3
11 Ramat Gan Haroe
12 Ramat Gan Kahanman
13 Bar Ilan University LRT Purple Line
14 Petah Tikva Kfar Ganim Metro M3
15 Petah Tikva Ben Gourion
16 Petah Tikva Trumpledor
17 Petah Tikva Centre
18 Petah Tikva East
19 Sirkin
20 Sirkin North
21 Givat Hashlosha
Table 47. Detailed list of stations M1
136 137
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.5 Right-of-way requirements and land acquisition summary

SECTION NUMBER STATION INTERCHANGE
5.5.1 Right-of-way requirements
1 Hertzliya Marina
2 Hertzliya Aba Even LRT Green Line The right-of-way requirements are based on the following principles:
3 Hertzliya Station Israel Railways • In running sections, the width of the infrastructure (tunnel or viaduct) + extra 10 meters
4 Ramat Hasharon West on each side
5 Glilot • In stations, the width of the station box + extra 10 meters on each side
6 Kiryat Shaul Metro M1
7 Hazan
Ramat Hachayal-Assuta
8 LRT Green Line
Hospital
Israel Railways, LRT Red
9 Kiryat Arye Station
Line
Kiryat Arye Employment
10
Area Figure 116. Metro loads at morning peak hour
LRT Red Line (Petah Tikva
11 Beilinson Hospital
branch) These requirements give the total envelope of the project considered at this stage to assess
12 Hatsayar Tsvi Shor the potential land impacts and corresponding acquisitions.
Full line 13 Petah Tikva Kfar Ganim Metro M2 5.5.2 Land categories of land and summary tables
14 Kiryat Ono Levi Eshkol For the identification of land acquisitions along the line, 3 types of lands were distinguished,
15 Tel Hashomer Hospital as explained below.
16 Tel Hashomer Base
The 3 types of land acquisitions can be explained as follows:
17 Or Yehuda Lod Road LRT Purple Line
• Main land acquisitions when the project envelope catches mostly built areas.
18 Or Yehuda Yigal Alon
19 Bikat Ono Airport Annex
20 Ariel Sharon Park
21 Azor
22 Holon Industrial Area
LRT Green Line (South-
23 Holon Hamelacha
East branch)
24 Holon Centre Metro M1
LRT Green Line (South-
25 Holon Golda Meir
West branch)
26 Holon Yoseftal Israel Railways Figure 117. Example land acquisition in built area
27 Bat Yam Yoseftal LRT Red Line
Table 34. Detailed list of stations M3
138 139
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
•  Land acquisitions in green and other open areas. 5.6 Stations context planning
All the stations were studied from an urban point of view in order to provide a basis for
the detailed station planning (urban insertion, location of entrances/exits, etc.) to be
developed in the Preliminary Design.
The synthetic presentation of each station was developed as follows:
• Key map
• Location and intermodality
• Population density
• Population and employment forecasts
• Points of interest
• Principles for urban insertion
Figure 119. Example land acquisition in green area
• Mapping (urban context within 800m radius, land use) and aerial picture
•  Presumed land acquisitions in zones where the future status of the lands (property,
availability) is unclear.
Figure 120. Example of passage through unclear status area
The next tables summarizes all the potential land acquisitions identified along M1,
M2 and M3.
Land urban Land Green Land status unknown

Grand total M1
277 181 m2 102 311 m2 68 883 m2

Grand total M2
151 207 m2 38 603 m2 51 570 m2

Grand total M2
122 944 m2 210 044 m2 40 744 m2
140 141
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.6.1 Samples of M1 stations analysis
142 143
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
144 145
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
146 147
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.7 Typical stations

5.7.1 General design principles
5.7.1.1 Typical elevated station
The typical basic elevated station consists of a central viaduct carrying a double track. The
viaduct overhangs a road and the constructions at ground level are kept to the minimum:
the public access of the stations, technical hatches when needed and the structural columns.
Figure 121. Elevated Station – Street Level plan
Figure 120. Elevated Station - 3D imaging
• Rail level: +12m; This typical station shall be adapted for each of the particular rail levels
indicated on the vertical alignment;
• Side platforms: typically 3.5 m minimum width (exclusive of vertical circulation);
• Entrance provided from either side of the road;
• No public space at street level, except entrances and possibly a limited number of
technical rooms underground in traffic island zone (access hatch located between Figure 122. Elevated Station –Concourse Level plan
viaduct piers);
• Vertical circulations are integrated so that passenger flows are clear, easy to understand
and comfortable during normal operation, and so that a safe exit is provide in case of
emergency;
• For step-free access for all in the stations, two elevators provided at each entrance
(linking street and concourse levels), and from concourse to each platform. The double
elevator ensures service continuity, even if one of the elevators is out of service/ being
maintained.
• The underside of any part of the concourse which is above a carriageway is to respect
the minimum clearance (typically 5.50m).
148 149
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
Figure 125. Elevated Station – Cross section

Figure 123. Elevated Station – Platform Level Plan
5.7.1.2 Typical underground station
Figure 124. Elevated Station – Longitudinal section
Figure 126. Underground Station - 3D imaging
150 151
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
• Indicative rail level for typical station: -20 m; This typical station shall be adapted for
each of the particular rail levels indicated on the vertical alignment.
• Island platform - typically 12,6 m minimum width (due to construction constraints
surrounding the minimum distance between the twin tunnels);
• Two single track tunnels;
• Vertical circulations are integrated so that passenger flows are clear, easy to understand
and comfortable during normal operation, and so that a safe exit is provide in case of
emergency;
• In order to provide step-free access for all in the stations, two elevators are provided at
each entrance (linking street and concourse levels), and from concourse to platform.
The double elevator ensures the continuity of service even if one of the elevators is out
of service/ being maintained.
Figure 128. Underground Station – Concourse Level Plan
• At each level change, the vertical circulation is mechanized with, as a minimum, an
escalator in both up and down directions.
Figure 127. Underground Station – Street Level Plan
Figure 129. Underground Station – Platform Level Plan
152 153
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.7.1.3 Typical interchange (Holon Centre)

The crossing of the two lines, necessitates platforms of the respective lines to be at different
levels. The deeper station box shall have two supplementary levels inserted.
The example of Holon Centre is developed to represent the typical interchange station.
It consists of two underground station boxes each with their own rail levels, as indicated
below:
Rail level M1: -27,23 m;
Rail level M3: -37,23 m.
Figure 130. Underground Station – Longitudinal section
Figure 131. Underground Station – Cross section

Figure 132. Holon Centre Interchange Station – Station Arrangement
A transfer corridor linking both station boxes at a level approximately equidistant between
the two rail levels, is provided on mezzanine level 2. The width of this corridor is to be sized
to reflect the number of transfer passengers passing through the station.
As the station box of M1 is an adaptation of the standard typical underground station, only
the deepest box (M3) is represented, with four underground levels:
• Concourse level;
• Mezzanine 1 level;
• Mezzanine 2 (Transfer) level;
• Platform level.
The characteristics of this station box are similar to those of the typical underground
station, but with a rail level of -37,23 m.
154 155
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.7.2 Stations pre-sizing

5.7.2.1 Base
The stations pre-sizing of M1 was based on the outputs of the Tel Aviv transport model
(refer to traffic forecasts report ML-SYS-PRWD-RPT-000085). The figures are hourly (AM
Peak) and exclusive of all reliability, peak and/or surge factors and form the basis for the
station sizing calculations.
The next table gives the example of the outputs for the stations of M3.
Type Northbound Southbound

Station Station UG/EL/
id Int Boarding Alighting Load Boarding Alighting Load
M3-STA01 Hertzliya Marina UG - 318 - 458 - 458
Figure 133. Holon Centre Interchange Station – 3D imaging M3-STA02 Hertzliya Aba Even UG 5 3393 318 841 60 1238
M3-STA03 Hertzliya Station UG 654 756 3706 2618 51 3806
M3-STA04 Ramat Hasharon West UG 203 156 3808 636 22 4419
M3-STA05 Glilot UG 53 542 3761 306 87 4639
M3-STA06 Kiryat Shaul UG 2614 3856 4250 6465 2566 8538
M3-STA07 Hazan Int (M1) 1125 1231 5492 785 1722 7601
M3-STA08 Ramat Hachayal UG 391 2621 5595 585 2217 5969
M3-STA09 Kiryat Arye Station UG 1695 1485 7825 1739 1027 6681
M3-STA10 Kiryat Arye Employment UG 90 2102 7614 92 951 5822
M3-STA11 Beilinson Hospital UG 1434 4091 9627 3194 1229 7788

M3-STA12 Hatsayar Tsvi Shor UG 394 406 12284 712 168 8332
M3-STA13 Petah Tikva Kfar Ganim UG 7064 5690 12295 4498 4606 8224
Figure 134. Holon Centre Interchange Station – Transfer mezzanine level plan
M3-STA14 Kiryat Ono Levi Eshkol Int (M2) 2229 1189 10922 587 2068 6743
M3-STA15 Tel Hashomer Hospital UG 685 531 9882 295 512 6526
M3-STA16 Tel Hashomer Base UG 1607 491 9729 671 493 6704
M3-STA17 Or Yehuda Lod Road UG 2772 248 8612 189 2358 4535
M3-STA18 Or Yehuda Yigal Alon UG 211 2463 6089 1323 606 5252
M3-STA19 Bikat Ono UG 1875 1374 8341 408 2010 3650
M3-STA20 Ariel Sharon Park UG 438 33 7840 373 26 3996
M3-STA21 Azor UG 629 465 7434 1215 378 4832
M3-STA22 Holon Industrial Area UG 72 2467 7270 193 787 4239
M3-STA23 Holon Hamelacha UG 602 1679 9665 1333 428 5144
M3-STA24 Holon Centre UG 6401 4125 10743 2530 3551 4122
M3-STA25 Holon Golda Meir Int (M1) 2012 1223 8467 681 1387 3416
M3-STA26 Holon Yoseftal UG 2003 449 7678 401 812 3005
Figure 135. Holon Centre Interchange Station – Longitudinal Section
M3-STA27 Bat Yam Yoseftal UG 6124 - 6124 - 3005 -
Table 38. M3 passenger forecasts - Year 2040
156 157
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.7.2.2 Pre-sizing for normal operations Example: Meir Hospital (underground station, central platform)
Level of service requirements: Direction A
• Platform Waiting zone LOS C = 0.7 to 0.9m²/pax Max Boarding Max Alighting Explanation
• Platform Walking zone LOS C = 1.4 to 2.3m²/pax 305 PAX/H 2100 PAX/H
• Stairs LOS C = 1.0m²/pax 549 PAX Peak 3780 PAX Peak Multiply by peak factors (1.2 x 1.5)
27 PAX/ 189 PAX/
Data/assumptions Divide by 60, Multiply by Headway (3 min)
headway headway
Multiply by LoS densities 0.8 (boarding) and 1.85 (alighting)
21 m² 350 m²
Description value units to give required area
0.16 m 2.70 m Divide by platform length (130m) to give required width.
Passenger forecasts figures unreliability
1.2 2.86m (2.50 m) Total net circulation width required (absolute minimum)
factor
Net half platform net width (island) once minimum width
Surge Factor 1.5 3.86m
for circulation zone (2.50m) is applied.
Nominal max train load - 625x2 1250 pax/train

Headway 180 sec Direction B
Max Boarding Max Alighting Explanation
LOS C Waiting (0.7+0.9)/2 0.8 m²/pax. 1410 PAX/H 1471 PAX/H
LOS C Walking (1.4+2.3)/2 1.85 m²/pax. 2538 PAX
2647 PAX Peak Multiply by peak factors (1.2 x 1.5)
Peak
Platform Length 130 m 127 PAX/ 132 PAX/
Divide by 60, Multiply by Headway (3 min)
Platform Minimum clear Width 3.5 m headway headway
Edge effect platform rear zone (equipment) 0.5 m Multiply by LoS densities 0.8 (boarding) and 1.85 (alighting)
102 m² 244 m²
Edge effect platform edge zone (PSD) 0.5 m to give required area
Table 54. Data – assumptions 0.79 m 1.88 m Divide by platform length (130m) to give required width.
2.67 m (2.50 m) Total net circulation width required (absolute minimum)
Platform width = (Space required for walking and waiting/Platform length) + space for Net half platform width (island) once minimum width for
equipment + space for PSD 3.67 m
circulation zone (2.50m) is applied.
Note: Platform width calculated shall never be smaller than platform minimum width 7.53 m Total Net Platform width (A+B)
Equipment Space 0,5 Table 55. Station sizing example 1

Platform Walking Space
2,5 3.5m
Areas Waiting Space
Security or PSD 0,5
Space
Waiting space required = (Boarding pax/min) x headway x LOS waiting

Walking space required = (Alighting pax/min) x headway x LOS walking
158 159
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.8 Operation PERIOD HEADWAY (min)

5.8.1 Preliminary Operation Plan M1 Fri 05:30 – 07:00 8
5.8.1.1 Main assumptions Fri 07:00 – 09:00 4
Fri 09:00 – One hour before Shabbat 8
Rolling stock
Shabbat Not operated
The following table recap some of the main rolling stock characteristics defined for M1:
Sat One hour after Shabbat – 22:00 6
Train length 130 m Sat 22:00 – 01:00 8
Number of cars 8 (MU) Table 57. Headway over the course “Weekday” for the central section
Comfort rate in peak hour 4 passengers/m²
Capacity per train 1250 passengers PERIOD HEADWAY (min)
Maximum operating speed 80 km/h 05:30 – 06:00 16
Table 56. Rolling stock characteristics 06:00 – 07:00 12
07:00 – 09:00 6
Headway 09:00 – 16:30 12
The Operational Headway is calculated taking into account the capacity of the train and the 16:30 – 19:00 6
maximum PPHPD (23,344). 19:00 – 22:00 12
22:00 – 01:00 16
3600×Rolling stock capacity
h (s)= Table 58. Headway over the course “Weekday” for the branches
PPHPD
PERIOD HEADWAY (min)
Then, the minimum theoretical headway is 192 s. However, in order to offer an attractive Fri 05:30 – 07:00 16
headway for the passengers, we will consider a 180 s as the operational headway in peak Fri 07:00 – 09:00 8
hour on the central section and 360s on the branches. Fri 09:00 – One hour before Shabbat 16
Service periods Shabbat Not operated
The following table shows the headway proposals for the different periods of the week: Sat One hour after Shabbat – 22:00 12
Sat 22:00 – 01:00 16
Max Boarding Max Alighting
05:30 – 06:00 8
06:00 – 07:00 6
Dwell times
07:00 – 09:00 3
09:00 – 16:30 6 Detailed in the Preliminary Operation Plan of M1, varying between 20 and 30 seconds
16:30 – 19:00 3 depending on the passenger movements forecasted for each station, with special peaks of
35 seconds in Rishon Letzion Centre and 40 seconds in Hashalom.
19:00 – 22:00 6
22:00 – 01:00 8 Cumulated dwell times reach a total of 1,155 seconds for the longest M1 end-to-end service.
Headway over the course “Weekday” for the central section
160 161
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.8.1.2 Commercial speed calculation The minimum turn-back time is composed:

The commercial trip time, which gives the commercial speed, is obtained by the combination • Arrival dwell time (20s),
of the 2 following items: • From the arrival platform to turn-back time (44s),
• Running time obtained from the simulation performed with RailSys® software, • Automatic reversal time (10s),
according to speed restrictions, curves position, slopes and stations.
• Minimum security-check time (65s),
• Dwell times, except those from terminal stations.
• From the turn-back to departure platform time (40s),
M1 East: Kfar Saba-Lod
• Departure dwell time (20s).
Kfar Saba - Lod Lod - Kfar Saba Then the total time in terminal station is 3min 19s.
Commercial trip-time 01h 12min 40s 01h 13min 23s 5.8.2.2 Fleet size calculation
Commercial speed 41,37 km/h 40,94 km/h
Kfar Saba - Lod
Table 59. Commercial trip-time and speed – M1 East
The theoretical round trip is:
M1 West: Raanana-Rehovot
Raanana - Rehovot Rehovot - Raanana M1 EAST TIME

Commercial trip-time 01h 06min 07s 01h 07min 02s Kfar Saba - Lod 01:12:40
Commercial speed 40,95 km/h 40,38 km/h Lod Kfar - Saba 01:13:26
Table 60. Commercial trip-time and speed – M1 West Kfar Saba terminal station 00:03:19
Lod terminal station 00:03:19
5.8.2 Fleet sizing
ROUND-TRIP TIME 2:32:44
The fleet sizing is based on the round trip time, combination of the commercial trip time and
the turn back time in terminus, which takes into account the security check requirement. Table 61. Round-trip time – M1 East (h = 180s)
5.8.2.1 Turn back time Therefore, for a 180s s headway, the fleet size is:
Turnback studies have been performed for a 360s operational headway on the branches.
FLEET SIZE – M1 EAST
The first train arriving at the terminal goes through security checks. However, the second Theoretical fleet for operation 25,46
train will use the turn-back before the station and will be checked at the opposite terminus. Practical fleet for operation 26
Reserve for operation 1
Reserve for maintenance (10%) 3
TOTAL 30
Table 62. Fleet size – M1 East (h = 180s)
Considering the practical fleet for operation, the layover time is 196 s.
Figure 136. Turnback movement – First train
162 163
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
Raanana - Rehovot 5.8.2.3 Staff size estimation

The theoretical round trip is: Operational Control Centre Staff
M1 EAST TIME The operational staff estimation for the OCC is presented in the table below:
Raanana - Rehovot 01:06:12
JOB NUMBER
Rehovot – Raanana 01:07:09
OCC Director 1 (office hour)
Raanana North terminal station 00:03:19
OCC Supervisor 4 (1 staff per shift onto 3 shifts)
Rehovot Kaplan Hospital terminal station 00:03:19
Traffic-line Controller 8 (2 staff per shift onto 3 shifts)
ROUND-TRIP TIME 2:19:59
Traffic-depot Controller 4 (1 staff per shift onto 3 shifts)
Table 63. Round-trip time – M1 West (h = 180s) Station Controller 4 (1 staff per shift onto 3 shifts)
Therefore, for a 180s s headway, the fleet size is: Security Controller 4 (1 staff per shift onto 3 shifts)
FLEET SIZE – M1 EAST Table 66. OCC staff size estimation

Theoretical fleet for operation 23,33 Operational Station staff
Practical fleet for operation 24 The size estimation of the operational station staff is presented in the table below:
Reserve for maintenance (10%) 3 TOTAL
JOB NUMBER
TOTAL 28 M1
Station Director 1 (office hour) 1
Table 64. Fleet size – M1 West (h = 180s) Station Manager (per station) 4 (1 staff per shift onto 3 shifts) 224
Considering the practical fleet for operation, the layover time is 241 s. Customer attendant in station (per
8 (2 staff per shift onto 3 shifts) 448
station)
Synthesis Customer attendant in mobile group
For a 180s headway on the central section (360s on the branches), the total fleet will be: (per sector)
Security-check staff (per terminal
TOTAL FLEET M1 station)
Practical fleet for operation 50 Table 67. Station staff size estimation
Reserve for maintenance (10%) 6 Considering the length of the line and its number of stations, we recommend to divide the
line operation in 6 sectors of approximately 9 stations.
TOTAL 58
Table 65. Total Fleet Line 1 (h = 180s)
The following figure shows the train distribution during the peak hour:
Figure 137. Train distribution during the peak hour (h = 180s)
164 165
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.8.3 Preliminary Operation Plan M2 PERIOD HEADWAY (min)

Rolling stock Fri 07:00 – 09:00 4
The following table recap some of the main rolling stock characteristics defined for M2
before the upcoming update: Shabbat Not operated
Sat 22:00 – 01:00 8
Train length 130 m
Number of cars 8 trains (MU) Table 70. Headway over the course “Fridays/Saturdays”
Comfort rate in peak hour 4 passengers/m2
Dwell times
Capacity per train 1250 passengers
Maximum operating speed 80 km/h Detailed in the Preliminary Operation Plan of M2, varying between 20 and 30 seconds
depending on the passenger movements forecasted for each station, with an exception in
Table 68. Rolling stock characteristics
Hashalom where the traffic forecasts leads to suggest 45 seconds.
Headway
Cumulated dwell times reach a total 515 seconds for all the M2 stations.
The Operational Headway is calculated taking into account the capacity of the train and the
5.8.3.2 Commercial speed calculation
maximim PPHPD (19,800).
The commercial trip time, which gives the commercial speed, is obtained by the combination
of the 2 following items:
h (s)= • Running time obtained from the simulation performed with RailSys® software,
PPHPD
according to speed restrictions, curves position, slopes and stations.
Then, the minimum theoretical headway is 227 s. However, in order to offer an attractive • Dwell times, except those from terminal stations.
headway for the passengers, we will consider a 180 s as the operational headway in peak
hour.
Wolfson - Rosh Hayin Rosh Hayin - Wolfson
Service periods
Commercial trip-time 42min 30s 43min 05s
The following table shows the headway proposals for the different periods of the week: Commercial speed 39,07 km/h 38,55 km/h
Table 71. Commercial trip-time and commercial speed M2
PERIOD HEADWAY (min)

05:30 – 06:00 8
06:00 – 07:00 6
07:00 – 09:00 3
09:00 – 16:30 6
16:30 – 19:00 3
19:00 – 22:00 6
22:00 – 01:00 8
Table 69. Headway over the course “Weekday”
166 167
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.8.3.3 Fleet sizing 5.8.3.4 Staff size estimation

The fleet sizing is based on the round trip time, combination of the commercial trip time and Operational Control Centre Staff
the turn back time in terminus, which takes into account the security check requirement. The operational staff estimation for the OCC is presented in the table below:
Turn back time
Turnback studies have been performed based on the 180s operational headway. JOB NUMBER
Station Controller 4 (1 staff per shift onto 3 shifts)
Security Controller 4 (1 staff per shift onto 3 shifts)
Figure 138. Turnback movement for a 180s operational headway Table 74. OCC staff size estimation
Operational Station staff

As per the simulations performed, the turn back time in terminus is:
The size estimation of the operational station staff is presented in the table below:
• Wolfson Hospital: 3min 33s
• Rosh Hayin East: 3min 25s JOB NUMBER TOTAL M2
Station Manager (per station) 4 (1 staff per shift onto 3 shifts) 96
Fleet size calculation Customer attendant in station (per
The theoretical round trip is: station)
Customer attendant in mobile group
M2 TIME (per sector)
Wolfson - Rosh Hayin 00:42:30 Security-check staff (per terminal
Rosh Hayin - Wolfson 00:43:05 station)
Wolfson Hospital terminal station 00:03:33 Table 75. Station staff size estimation
terminal station 00:03:19
ROUND-TRIP TIME 1:32:33 Considering the length of the line and its number of stations, we recommend to divide the
Table 72. Round-trip time (h = 180s)
Therefore, for a 180s s headway, the fleet size is:
FLEET SIZE – HEADWAY 180 s

Theoretical fleet for operation 30,85
Practical fleet for operation 32
TOTAL 37
Table 73. Fleet size (h = 180s)
168 169
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.8.4 Preliminary Operation Plan M3 PERIOD HEADWAY (min)

Rolling stock Fri 07:00 – 09:00 4
The following table recap some of the main rolling stock characteristics defined for M3
based on the final traffic forecasts. Shabbat Not operated
Sat 22:00 – 01:00 8
Train length 65 m
Number of cars 4 trains (SU) Table 78. Headway over the course “Fridays/Saturdays”
Comfort rate in peak hour 4 passengers/m2
Dwell times
Capacity per train 625 passengers
Maximum operating speed 80 km/h Detailed in the Preliminary Operation Plan of M3, varying between 20 and 25 seconds
depending on the passenger movements forecasted for each station, with 2 exceptions
Table 76. Rolling stock characteristics related to higher traffic forecasts: 35 seconds at Petah Tikva Kfar Ganim (interchange with
Headway M3) and Kiryat Shaul.
The Operational Headway is calculated taking into account the capacity of the train and the Cumulated dwell times reach a total 535 seconds for all the M3 stations.
maximum PPHPD (12,300).
5.8.4.2 Commercial speed calculation

h (s)= The commercial trip time, which gives the commercial speed, is obtained by the combination
PPHPD
of the 2 following items:
Then, the minimum theoretical headway is 252 s. However, in order to offer an attractive • Running time obtained from the simulation performed with RailSys® software,
headway for the passengers, we will consider a 180 s as the operational headway in peak according to speed restrictions, curves position, slopes and stations.
hour.
• Dwell times, except those from terminal stations.
Service periods
The following table shows the headway proposals for the different periods of the week: Bat Yam Yoseftal – Hertzliya Marina –
Hertzliya Marina Bat Yam Yoseftal
Commercial trip-time 47min 53s 47min 21s
PERIOD HEADWAY (min) Commercial speed 42,94 km/h 43,42 km/h
05:30 – 06:00 8
06:00 – 07:00 6 Table 79. Commercial trip-time and commercial speed M2
07:00 – 09:00 3
09:00 – 16:30 6
16:30 – 19:00 3
19:00 – 22:00 6
22:00 – 01:00 8
Table 77. Headway over the course “Weekday”
170 171
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.8.4.3 Fleet sizing 5.8.4.4 Staff size estimation

The fleet sizing is based on the round trip time, combination of the commercial trip time and Operational Control Centre Staff
the turn back time in terminus, which takes into account the security check requirement. The operational staff estimation for the OCC is presented in the table below:
Turn back time
Turnback studies have been performed based on the 180s operational headway. JOB NUMBER
Station Controller 4 (1 staff per shift onto 3 shifts)
Security Controller 4 (1 staff per shift onto 3 shifts)
Table 69. OCC staff size estimation
Figure 139. Turnback movement for a 180s operational headway
Operational Station staff
As per the simulations performed, the turn back time in terminus is:
The size estimation of the operational station staff is presented in the table below:
• Bat Yam Yoseftal: 3min 28s
JOB NUMBER TOTAL M3
• Hertzliya Marina: 3min 13s
Station Manager (per station) 4 (1 staff per shift onto 3 shifts) 108
Fleet size calculation Customer attendant in station (per
The theoretical round trip is: station)
Customer attendant in mobile group
M2 TIME 8 (2 staff per shift onto 3 shifts) 24
(per sector)
Bat Yam - Hertzliya 00:47:53 Security-check staff (per terminal
Hertzliya - Bat Yam 00:47:21 station)
Bat Yam Yoseftal terminal station 00:03:28 Table 70. Station staff size estimation
Hertzlita Marina terminal station 00:03:13
ROUND-TRIP TIME 1:41:55 Considering the length of the line and its number of stations, we recommend to divide the
Table 67. Round-trip time (h = 180s)
Therefore, for a 180s s headway, the fleet size is:
FLEET SIZE – HEADWAY 180 s

Theoretical fleet for operation 33,97
Practical fleet for operation 35
TOTAL 40
Table 68. Fleet size (h = 180s)

172 173
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.9 Preliminary Maintenance Plan 5.9.2 Maintenance service levels

5.9.1 Types of maintenance The table below summarizes the five levels according to standard EN 13306: 2010
The maintenance activities is divided into two main categories: ("Maintenance Terminology "). These tasks are divided into levels of increasing complexity.
• Preventive maintenance, also called scheduled maintenance. It gives a maintenance

Levels Definitions Staff
frequency based for instance on duration, kilometers traveled or specific conditions,
Immediate and quick interventions that require simple
• Corrective maintenance, which depends on failures. procedures.
The illustration below shows all types of maintenance. The action allows to restore or to assure the continuity of the Personnel with
1
service. minimal training
This level is characterized by simple actions carried out with
minimal training.
Actions that require detailed procedures and / or support equipment
(integrated property or external). Qualified
2 (1)
This level is characterized by basic actions which should be carried out personnel
by qualified personnel using detailed procedures.
Operations that require complex procedures and / or portable
support equipment. Qualified
3 (2) technical
This level is characterized by basic actions which should be personnel
carried out by qualified personnel using detailed procedures.
Operations whose procedures involve the mastery of a
technique or specific technology and / or implementation of
specialized support equipment. Specialized
4 (3) technical
This level is characterized by actions which imply the know-how personnel
of a technique or a technology and that should be carried out by
Figure 140. Synopsis of maintenance
specialized technical personnel.
Operations whose procedures involve expertise, using special
techniques or technologies, processes and / or industrial
support equipment. Specialized
5 (4) manufacturer or
This level is characterized by actions which imply a knowledge company
held by the manufacturer or a specialized company with
industrial logistic support equipment.
Table 76. Maintenance levels
174 175
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
(1) Level 2 operations are usually carried out on site. They often lead to change a complete • Local plans: keeping the required distance from sensitive uses (residential, public
subassembly which will then be repaired in the workshop. buildings, etc.) in accordance with approved plans and according to environmental
(2) Level 3 operations are usually carried out on site. They often lead to change one or guidelines.
more elements of a subset. These elements are then repaired in the workshop. 5.10.1.3 Depot integration with needs of development
(3) Level 4 operations often involve repairing removed subsets on site. Research of the Depots could be planned in a multi-story structure with mixed uses – mainly industrial &
failure and the change of the failed component require very specific ways and level of employment, and any other use whose activity in the plot does not impair the operation of
qualification. the railway system.
(4) Level 5 operations often involve renovation facilities or carrying out a major enhancement. 5.10.2 Sites selection process
In order to maximize the chance to find appropriate site(s), numerous options were defined
5.10 Depots studies and compared for each line. The process was as follows:
5.10.1 Sites selection parameters • Identification of potentially available plots meeting the physical and land use criteria
described above
5.10.1.1 Physical criteria
• Multicriteria analysis ( for comparing the sites sector per sector and line per line
Assuming no mutualization, the depots experts of the team estimated that each Metro line
would require a depot of approximately 200 Dunams, except M1 which is twice longer and
would require 2 sites in the same range of size. Additional physical criteria:
• Plot dimensions: Minimum width ~150 m
• Plot shape: as regular as possible (rectangular)
• Maximum distance from the end of the line: 800-1,000 m
The location of the depots should take into account the implementation stages if any, and
could be at an edge or along a line.
5.10.1.2 Land use criteria
According to planning policy depot should be located within the urban fabric: Figure 141. Example of comparison and choice (Raanana vs. Kfar Saba for M1)
1. N.O.P.35 (national outline plan for Integrated construction, development and
conservation (land use priorities: • Shortlisting of sites and arbitration with the relevant planning authorities of Tel Aviv
District and Central District
• Urban Fabric
This process lead to confirm and sometimes refine options for M1 (2 depots) and M3 (1
• Adjacent to Urban fabric, in integrated conservation fabric
depot), and to reconsider the location of the site for M2 depot between Petah Tikva and
• Integrated conservation fabric adjacent to approved construction area Rosh Hayin.
2. All of the above is subject to compliance with the N.O.P.s dealing with the sensitivity
of open spaces (NOP.8 – natural reserves and national parks; NOP.22 – forests and
forestry; NOP.13 – the coastal area and others).
3. DOP (district outline plan of the ‘Central’ and ‘Tel Aviv’ districts) land use priorities:
• Transportation centers, Operational areas and other utilities
• Industrial areas
• Employment areas
• In open spaces with low sensitivity / value adjacent to the land uses above (with priority
to agricultural or open countryside land uses) Figure 142. Selected sites for the Metro network, including 2 depots for M1
176 177
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.10.3 Depots sites M1

5.10.3.1 Depots sites and functions
M1 Depot 1
Figure 144. Location and site of M1 depot 2
Located in the South of Rishon Letzion in the South-West branch (Rishonim), the M1 Depot
2 should be fitted with the following facilities:
Figure 143. Location and site of M1 depot 1
• Stabling area;
Located in the North (Raanana), M1 Depot 1 should be fitted with the following facilities: • Washing machine building;
• Stabling area; • Light and heavy maintenance building;
• Washing machine building; • Test track;
• Light maintenance building; • Back-up OCC building.
• Wheel machining facilities;
• Storage area for infrastructure maintenance;
• Infrastructure maintenance vehicles stabling area;
• Test track;
• OCC building.
M1 depot 2
178 179
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.10.3.2 Depot 1 in Raanana: sizing and layout Equipments on

The calculations were performed on the basis of the 59 trains fleet defined in the Preliminary Requirements Requirements depot – refer to
Building Name
Operation Plan. The sizing is based on the 180 seconds operational headway required for headway 3 min headway 90s Depot Functional
2040, and a comparison was made assuming a 90 seconds headway for the long term, in basic layout
order to check the margin. The conclusions are summarized in the table below. • 1 track for 130m • 1 track for 130m
trains (double trains (double
units): units): No difference
Equipments on Inspection track between the sizing
Requirements Requirements depot – refer to • Workshop, storage, • Workshop, storage, and the drawings.
Building Name office and workers office and workers
headway 3 min headway 90s Depot Functional
basic layout premises premises
Stabling area 30 stabling positions 64 stabling positions 44 stabling positions • 1 track for 130m • 1 track for 130m
• Train wash slab • Train wash slab No difference between
units): units):
and technical room and technical room Inspection track the sizing and the
No difference between • Workshop, storage, • Workshop, storage, drawings.
Train washing • Free track at each • Free track at each the sizing and the office and workers office and workers
machine side of the plant side of the plant drawings. premises premises
shall be provided shall be provided
• 2 tracks for 30m • 2 tracks for 30m
(for trains of 130m) (for trains of 130m) Auxiliary vehicles vehicles vehicles No difference between
• 4 tracks for 130m • 7 tracks for 130m maintenance the sizing and the
building • Workshops and • Workshops and drawings.
trains: 3 elevated trains: 6 elevated
offices offices
tracks and one flat tracks and one flat
Light maintenance 4 tracks for light • 1 track • 1 track
track. track.
building maintenance. accommodating accommodating
• Workshop, storage, • Workshop, storage, the plant the plant No difference between
technical rooms, technical rooms, Wheel lathe building • Free track at each • Free track at each the sizing and the
offices offices side of the plant side of the plant drawings.
• 1 track • 1 track shall be provided shall be provided
accommodating accommodating (for trains of 130m) (for trains of 130m)
the plant the plant No difference between Fixed installations No difference between
• Workshops, • Workshops,
Wheel lathe building • Free track at each • Free track at each the sizing and the Maintenance the sizing and the
offices, etc. offices, etc.
side of the plant side of the plant drawings. building drawings.
shall be provided shall be provided • 2 tracks of 100m • 2 tracks of 100m
(for trains of 130m) (for trains of 130m) for infrastructure for infrastructure
maintenance maintenance
Test track • 1 track • 1 track Not a dedicated track
vehicles storage vehicles storage
• Outside and inside • Outside and inside and convoy and convoy
storage storage forming forming
• Outside area • Outside area No difference between Vehicles storage • Outside area • Outside area No difference between
Infrastructure
for loading and for loading and the sizing and the area (infrastructure for loading and for loading and the sizing and the
maintenance
unloading of trucks unloading of trucks drawings. maintenance) unloading of trucks unloading of trucks drawings.
and rail service and rail service
• Service cars and • Service cars and
vehicles vehicles
truck parking truck parking
truck parking truck parking
• Outside storage for • Outside storage for
heavy components heavy components
180 181
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
Equipments on 5.10.3.3 Depot 2 in Rishonim: sizing and layout

Requirements Requirements depot – refer to The calculations were performed on the basis of the 59 trains fleet defined in the Preliminary
Building Name
headway 3 min headway 90s Depot Functional Operation Plan. The sizing is based on the 180 seconds operational headway required for
basic layout 2040, and a comparison was made assuming a 90 seconds headway for the long term, in
No difference order to check the margin. The conclusions are summarized in the table below.
Main store Storage building Storage building between the sizing
and the drawings. Requirements Requirements Difference with the
Building Name
• Road, track • Road, track No difference between headway 3 min headway 90 s drawings
Others connection, connection, the sizing and the Stabling area 29 stabling positions 50 stabling positions 36 stabling positions
delivery areas, etc. delivery areas, etc. drawings. • Train wash slab • Train wash slab
Table 77. M1 Depot 1 requirements summary and technical room and technical room
No difference between
Train washing • Free track at each • Free track at each the sizing and the
The functional layout of the depot 1 of M1 in Raanana is shown below. machine side of the plant side of the plant drawings.
(for trains of 130m) (for trains of 130m)
trains: 3 elevated trains: 6 elevated
tracks and one flat tracks and one flat No difference between
Light maintenance track. track. the sizing and the
building
• Workshop, storage, • Workshop, storage, drawings.
technical rooms, technical rooms,
offices offices
• 4 tracks for 65 m • 6 tracks for 65 m
trains: 4 flat tracks. trains: 6 flat tracks. No difference between
Heavy maintenance
Figure 145. M1 depot 1 (North) layout • Workshop, storage, • Workshop, storage, the sizing and the
building
technical rooms, technical rooms, drawings.
offices offices
• 1 track • 1 track
accommodating accommodating
the plant the plant No difference between
Bogie drop system • Free track at each • Free track at each the sizing and the
side of the plant side of the plant drawings.
Test track • 1 track • 1 track Not a dedicated track
182 183
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
Requirements Requirements Difference with the 5.10.4 Depot site M2

Building Name
headway 3 min headway 90 s drawings 5.10.4.1 Location and functions
1 outside track on 1 outside track on
Delivery track the sizing and the
slab of 100m length slab of 100m length
drawings.
• 1 track for 130m • 1 track for 130m
units): units): No difference between
Inspection track the sizing and the
office and workers office and workers
premises premises
• Road, track • Road, track
connection, connection,
Other the sizing and the
delivery areas, delivery areas,
drawings.
security check, etc security check, etc
Figure 148. Location and site of M2 depot
Table 78. M1 Depot 2 requirements summary
Located in the North of Sirkin, M2 Depot has a substantial land’s surface, allowing the
The functional layout of the depot 2 of M1 in Rishon Letzion (Rishonim) is shown below. accommodation of the following facilities:
• Stabling area
• Washing machine buildings
• Light and heavy maintenance buildings
• Wheel machining facilities
• Infrastructure maintenance base
• Infrastructure maintenance vehicles stabling area
• Test track
• OCC buildings.
Figure 147. M1 depot 2 (South) layout
184 185
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.10.4.2 Depot sizing and layout Requirements Requirements Difference with the
Building Name
The calculations were performed on the basis of the fleet defined in the Preliminary headway 3 min headway 90 s drawings
Operation Plan (upcoming update). The sizing is based on the 180 seconds headway and a • Road, track • Road, track
No difference
comparison was made assuming a 90 seconds for the long term to check the margin. The connection, connection,
Other between the sizing
conclusions are summarized below. delivery areas, delivery areas,
and the drawings.
security check, etc security check, etc
Requirements Requirements Difference with the • 1 outside track • 1 outside track No difference between
Building Name
headway 3 min headway 90 s drawings Delivery track on slab of 130m on slab of 130m the sizing and the
32 stabling positions 32 stabling positions length (track 7) length (track 7) drawings.
Stabling area 32 stabling positions
of 65m RS of 130m RS • 2 tracks for 30m • 2 tracks for 30m
• Train wash slab • Train wash slab Auxiliary vehicles vehicles vehicles No difference between
and technical room and technical room maintenance the sizing and the
No difference between building • Workshops and • Workshops and drawings.
Train washing • Free track at each • Free track at each the sizing and the offices offices
machine side of the plant side of the plant drawings. • Workshops, • Workshops,
shall be provided shall be provided Fixed installations No difference between
offices, etc. offices, etc.
(for trains of 130m) (for trains of 130m) maintenance the sizing and the
• 4 tracks for 130m • 4 tracks for 130m building • 1 loading platform • 1 loading platform drawings.
trains (3 elevated trains (3 elevated of 150m length of 150m length
tracks, one flat tracks and one flat No difference between • 2 tracks of 100m • 2 tracks of 100m
Light maintenance track) track) for infrastructure for infrastructure
the sizing and the
building
• Workshop, storage, • Workshop, storage, drawings. maintenance maintenance
technical rooms, technical rooms, vehicles storage vehicles storage
offices offices and convoy and convoy
• 3 tracks for 130m • 3 tracks for 130m forming forming
trains: 3 flat tracks. trains: 3 flat tracks. No difference between • Outside area • Outside area
Heavy maintenance Vehicles storage No difference between
building • Workshop, storage, • Workshop, storage, the sizing and the area (infrastructure for loading and for loading and the sizing and the
technical rooms, technical rooms, drawings. maintenance) unloading of trucks unloading of trucks drawings.
offices offices and rail service and rail service
• 1 track • 1 track vehicles vehicles
accommodating accommodating
the plant the plant No difference between truck parking truck parking
Bogie drop system • Free track at each • Free track at each the sizing and the
drawings. • Outside storage for • Outside storage for
side of the plant side of the plant
shall be provided shall be provided heavy components heavy components
(for trains of 130m) (for trains of 130m) No difference between
Test track • 1 test track • 1 test track Not a dedicated track Main store • Storage building • Storage building the sizing and the
drawings.
• 1 track for 130m • 1 track for 130m
No difference between Table 74. M2 Depot requirements summary
units): units):
office and workers office and workers
premises premises
186 187
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
The designed functional layout of the M2 depot in Givat Hashlosha is shown below. 5.10.5.2 Depot sizing and layout
The calculations were performed on the basis of the fleet defined in the Preliminary
Operation Plan. The sizing is based on the 180 seconds operational headway required for
2040, and a comparison was made assuming a 90 seconds headway for the long term, in
order to check the margin. The conclusions are summarized in the table below.
Requirements Requirements Difference with the

Building Name
headway 3 min headway 90 s drawings
Stabling area 38 stabling positions 75 stabling positions 76 stabling positions
• Train wash slab • Train wash slab
and technical room and technical room
Train washing • Free track at each • Free track at each the sizing and the
machine side of the plant side of the plant
Figure 148. M2 depot layout drawings.
5.10.5 Depot site M3
5.10.5.1 Location and functions trains: 4 elevated trains: 6 elevated
tracks and one flat tracks and one flat No difference between
Light maintenance track. track. the sizing and the
building
offices offices
trains: 3 flat tracks. trains: 4 flat tracks.
Heavy maintenance
building • Workshop, storage, • Workshop, storage, 3 tracks instead of 4
offices offices
• 1 track • 1 track
Figure 149. Location and site of M3 depot accommodating accommodating
the plant the plant No difference between
Located in the western part of Or Yehuda, adjacent to Road 4, M3 Depot has a substantial
land’s surface, allowing the accommodation of the following facilities: Bogie drop system • Free track at each • Free track at each the sizing and the
side of the plant side of the plant drawings.
• Stabling area
• Washing machine buildings (for trains of 130m) (for trains of 130m)
• Light and heavy maintenance buildings Test track • 1 track • 1 track No dedicated track
• Wheel machining facilities • 1 track for 65m • 1 track for 65m
• Infrastructure maintenance base units): units): No difference between
• Infrastructure maintenance vehicles stabling area • Workshop, storage, • Workshop, storage, drawings.
• Test track office and workers office and workers
premises premises
• OCC building.
188 189
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
Requirements Requirements Difference with the The designed functional layout for the M3 depot in Or Yehuda is shown in the next page.
Building Name
headway 3 min headway 90 s drawings
1 outside track on 1 outside track on No difference between
Delivery track slab of 100m length slab of 100m length the sizing and the
(min.) (min.) drawings.
Auxiliary vehicles vehicles vehicles No difference between
maintenance the sizing and the
building • Workshops and • Workshops and drawings.
offices offices
• Workshops, • Workshops,
Fixed installations offices, etc. offices, etc. No difference between
maintenance the sizing and the
building • 1 loading platform • 1 loading platform drawings.
of 150m length of 150m length Figure 150. M3 depot layout
• 2 tracks of 100m • 2 tracks of 100m
for infrastructure for infrastructure 5.11 Balance of power HV/LV of the Metro network
maintenance maintenance 5.11.1 Traction power substations
vehicles storage vehicles storage
The total power needed for power traction supply and its auxiliary were calculated through
and convoy and convoy
power simulations performed with the software MARCADET.
forming forming
M1
Vehicles storage • Outside area • Outside area No difference between
area (infrastructure for loading and for loading and the sizing and the • Traction power supply for 24 TSS (3 MW) on line and 2 TSS in depot (4,5 MW) is 81 MW;
maintenance) unloading of trucks unloading of trucks drawings. • Auxiliary power for 24 TSS (0,1 MW) on line and 2 TSS in depots (0,5 MW) is 3,4 MW.
and rail service and rail service
vehicles vehicles M2
• Service cars and • Service cars and • Traction power supply for 13 TSS (4,5 MW) on line and 1 TSS in depot (4,5 MW) is 63 MW;
truck parking truck parking • Auxiliary power for 13 TSS (0,1 MW) on line and 1 TSS in depot (0,5 MW) is 1,8 MW.
• Outside storage for • Outside storage for M3
heavy components heavy components
• Traction power supply for 13 TSS (3 MW) on line and 2 TSS in depot (4,5 MW) is 43,5 MW;
Main store • Storage building • Storage building the sizing and the • Auxiliary power for 13 TSS (0,1 MW) on line and 1 TSS in depot (0,5 MW) is 1,8 MW.
drawings.
• Road, track • Road, track No difference between 5.11.2 Lighting and power substations
Others connection, connection, the sizing and the
delivery areas, etc. delivery areas, etc. drawings. The total power needed for lighting and power substations was estimated as part of the
MEP study in Phase 6.
Table 75. M3 Depot requirements summary M1: lighting & power substation for 5 LPS (0,8 MW) on elevated stations and 50 LPS (2,5
MW) in underground stations and 2 LPS in depots 2,5 MW), is 134 MW.
M2: lighting & power substation for 3 LPS (0,8 MW) on elevated station and 23 LPS (2,5
MW) in underground station and 1 LPS in depot 2,5 MW), is 62,4 MW.
M3: lighting & power substation for 27 LPS (2,5 MW) in underground station and 1 LPS in
depot 2,5 MW), is 70 MW.
190 191
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.11.3 Diversity factor and balance power results 5.12 Park & Ride
In order to have a real balance of power, we apply a coefficient of use for all the power The Park & Ride study was conducted based on the design criteria defined in Phases 2/3
systems. for location, sizing and design, summarized in the corresponding chapter of the present
This coefficient reduces the theorical global power and the values are given in the table document.
below: 5.12.1 Initial sites selection
The study selected numerous potential P&R sites in the area served by the 3 Metro lines,
Theorical Diversity taking into account:
Line System Result
power factor
• Major roads,
TSS 81 MW 0,8 64,8 MW
• Traffic,
M1 AUX 3,4 MW 0,6 2,04 MW
LPS 134 MW 0,65 87,1 MW • Potential catchment areas,
TSS 63 MW 0,8 50,4 MW • Local existing and designated land use, etc.
M2 AUX 1,8 MW 0,6 1,08 MW During the process, 12 sites were examined, among which 7 were eventually selected.
LPS 62,4 MW 0,65 40,56 MW
For each of the 8 sites, sizing calculation and analysis of options for design was made. The
TSS 43,5 MW 0,8 34,8 MW
sizing and design principles were based upon NTA demand calculation for the selected
M3 AUX 1,8 MW 0,6 1,08 MW sites. The basic assumptions assumed that 40% of the traffic volumes entering the site in
LPS 70 MW 0,65 45,5 MW three AM peak hours would enter the facility during one AM peak hour. The calculation for
327,36 MW the whole three hours is:
Total power for 22 kV
(~330 MW)
Demand for AM peak hour X 2.2 = Demand for 3 peak hours.
Table 76. Balance of Power results table The P&R facility size estimation was calculated as follows:
For power generators, we take the result of each line power LPS. 1. Calculation of the parking demand as shown above.
Then we have for: 2. Multiplying the number of parking spaces by 30m² for at-grade P&R, or by 40m² for
• M1: 9 10 kV power generators of 10 MW; superstructure P&R.
• M2: 4 10 kV power generators of 10 MW; and The decision regarding the parking facility characteristics and geometry would be based
upon the availability of the land taken for this purpose.
• M3: 4 10 kV power generators of 10 MW.
• If the lot would be large enough and matching the estimated demand, at-grade
These power generators could be displayed in 7 DSS, located along the 3 lines. configuration is possible,
As shown in the table above, we obtain for the 22 kV, a balance of power of approximately • If the lot would be a smaller one, multi-level superstructure would be needed.
330 MW. This value should be taken into account for the balance of power for the Distribution
Substation (DSS). The 12 considered sites are summarized in the next table and located in the next page:
192 193
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
Requested Estimated 5.13 Layout design example: Ramle North

Site Status
area spaces The feasibility study included schematic typical layout design of one of the selected sites:
1 Raanana North Confirmed 112,000 m² 2,860 Ramle North P&R was chosen, adjacent to the Ramle Neve David station of M1. The layout
2 East Kfar Saba Confirmed 75,000 m² 2,640 design shows the interior arrangement and the interface with the Metro station.
85 to 110,000 Due to the land constraints of this site, a multi-storey superstructure was chosen. The
3 Taas Hasharon Confirmed 2,860
m² layout is based on the demand calculated for the site as described in the previous chapter:
4 Kiryat Arye Not selected 2,200 spaces for overall AM peak hours. At this feasibility stage, each level include 700
5 Rosh Hayin Confirmed 88,000 m² 2,200 parking spots and a ramp leading to other levels. This example of P&R site also include
6 Petah Tikva Centre Confirmed 120,000 m² 3,000 underground link to the Metro station for pedestrians.
7 Ariel Sharon Park Not selected
8 Rishonim Not selected
9 North Ramle Confirmed 92,000 m² 2,200
10 Ramle Centre Not selected
11 Rehovot Kaplan Confirmed 110,000 m² 3,750
Nes Tziona Employment
12 Not selected
Centre
19,510
Figure 153. Ramle Neve David Station Park And Ride detail location
Figure 151. Map of the 12 sites reviewed during the study
194 Figure 154. Ramle Neve David Station Park And Ride Layout general design 195
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.14 Utilities in tunnel 5.14.2 Additional utilities: summary of issues

A secondary requirement of the Feasibility Studies was to investigate to possibility to An analysis was undertaken regarding the potential impacts of various public utilities, as
incorporate public utilities within the Metro tunnels throughout the network. This option summarized in the next table.
was eventually confirmed as irrelevant based on the analysis summarized below.
Connection to Compatibility/
5.14.1 Specific Metro requirements Utility name Size
entrances security
A Metro tunnel is designed and sized to accommodate a significant number of dedicated Stormwater drainage
utilities: Sewer pipes
• Group 1: utilities for rolling stock: power supply cables and 3rd Rail Optical fibers trays
• Group 2: utilities needed to operate the system: low voltage cable trays, telecom cable Power supply cables
trays, MV cables trays, optical fibers cable trays; Water supply pipes
• Group 3: utilities needed for the infrastructure: drainage pipes, pumps; Oil and Gas pipes
• Group 4: utilities needed for emergency purpose: emergency lights, ventilation fans,
Minor impact Utility incorporation doesn’t impact the functional tunnel section
water supply for fire hydrant.
Moderated impact Utility incorporation may impact the functional tunnel section
Major impact Utility incorporation impacts the functional tunnel section
Table 77. Utilities implementation technical impact
In overall, the issues raised by additional utilities from concessionaires were listed as
follows:
• Increase of the tunnel diameter and corresponding constructions costs,
• Connection issues (entrances/exits to tunnel), impact in stations and absence of route
flexibility,
• Geometry incompatibilities, for example power supply cables requiring specific bending
radius impacting the linear or station infrastructure,
• Incompatibility issues such as minimum distance to observe between power supply
cables and other utilities,
• Operation and legal/responsibility issues, in particular for granting access to
Figure 154. Example of tunnel cross section with Metro utilities
concessionaires for maintenance).
Therefore, and as illustrated with the above cross section, the tunnel gauge is strongly
constrained by these Metro utilities, which is an issue for incorporating additional utilities
5.14.3 Conclusions of the analysis
or equipment.
As a conclusion of this analysis, it was confirmed that from benchmarks:
• There are no significant cases of incorporation of exterior utilities in any Metro tunnel
worldwide,
• The only exception can be optical fibre communication networks, which can be easy
to accommodate (no impact on the tunnel diameter, no significant maintenance issue)
and can even be a source of revenue for the Metro infrastructure owner.
Therefore, additional utilities in the tunnel, besides optical fibre, are not a relevant option
for the Metro project.
196 197
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.15 Cost estimates: CAPEX 5.15.2 CAPEX M1

5.15.1 Assumptions Item Measurement Rate NIS Units CAPEX NIS
units
5.15.1.1 Costs references
Length of the line km 74
The references considered to establishing the costs rates for most of the CAPEX items are Underground km 74
summarized below. Underground stations Unit 55
Rolling stock Cars 464
HEADING TITLE Utilities relocation 2,574,000,000
Santiago (Chile), Lines 3 and 6 Infrastructure NIS/km 13,618,161,480
Panama, Line 2 Underground sections 13,618,161,480
Latin America
Mexico, Line 1 Stations 19,800,000,000
Underground stations NIS/unit 360,000,000 55 19,800,000,000
Buenos Aires, Lines D and F
Systems 4,998,383,670
Dubai, extension Red and Green
Middle East Tracks 982,045,008
Lines, Expo 2020
Asia India: Mumbai, Ahmedabad Power supply system 957,091,842
Grand Paris Express, Lines 15 and Signalling system 909,727,728
Europe Communications / Telecoms
18 541,045,092
and passenger information
Morocco: Casablanca
Africa NIS/
Algeria: Algiers Environmental Control
underground 16,800,000 55 924,000,000
System (ECS)
Table 83. Reference for cost rates station
Platform Screen Doors (PSD) NIS/station 10,920,000 55 600,600,000
5.15.1.2 Exclusions Fare collection system (AFC) 83,874,000
Equipment and Rolling Stock 3,423,913,500
At feasibility stage, the following cost items are not included:
Depots 819,409,500
• Land acquisitions,
Control centre building NIS/unit 12,600,000 12,600,000
• Early works, Rolling stock NIS/car 2,591,904,000
• Design costs (preliminary design) Grand Total NIS 44,414,458,650
• For the power supply system, the connections with the HV public network (IEC) and Design 2,220,722,933
corresponding transformers. PMC 1,554,506,053
QA 2,220,722,933
Percentage of
Contingencies 40% 20,164,164,227
Grand Total
Outturn Total NIS 70,574,574,795
Outturn Total Inc. VAT 82,572,252,510
Table 84. Overall CAPEX M1
Considered based on the length of the line, the CAPEX is:

•  797 Million NIS per km excluding the 40% contingency (221 Million USD)
•  1,116 Million NIS per km including the 40% contingency (310 Million USD)
198 199
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.15.3 CAPEX M2 5.15.4 CAPEX M3
Item Measurement Rate NIS Units CAPEX NIS Item Measurement Rate NIS Units CAPEX NIS
units units
Length of the line km 29 Length of the line km 36
Underground km 29 Underground km 36
Underground stations Unit 26 Underground stations Unit 27
Rolling stock Cars 304 Rolling stock Cars 164
Utilities relocation 1,216,800,000 Utilities relocation 1,263,600,000
Infrastructure NIS/km 5,274,360,840 Infrastructure 6,502,244,280
Underground sections 5,274,360,840 Underground sections 6,502,244,280
Stations 9,360,000,000 Stations 9,720,000,000
Underground stations NIS/unit 360,000,000 26 9,360,000,000 Underground stations NIS/unit 360,000,000 27 9,720,000,000
Systems 2,426,159,400 Systems 2,746,129,050
Tracks 398,832,000 Tracks 488,720,400
Power supply system 388,143,000 Power supply system 502,558,350
Signalling system 603,489,600 Signalling system 649,059,600
Communications / Telecoms Communications / Telecoms
274,638,000 313,427,100
and passenger information and passenger information
NIS/ NIS/
Environmental Control Environmental Control
underground 16,800,000 26 436,800,000 underground 16,800,000 27 453,600,000
System (ECS) System (ECS)
station station
Platform Screen Doors (PSD) NIS/station 10,920,000 26 283,920,000 Platform Screen Doors (PSD) NIS/station 10,920,000 27 294,840,000
Fare collection system (AFC) 40,336,800 Fare collection system (AFC) 43,923,600
Equipment and Rolling Stock 2,037,703,500 Equipment and Rolling Stock 1,224,153,000
Depot 326,959,500 Depot 295,449,000
Control centre building NIS/unit 12,600,000 12,600,000 Control centre building NIS/unit 12,600,000 12,600,000
Rolling stock NIS/car 1,698,144,000 Rolling stock NIS/car 916,104,000
Grand Total NIS 20,315,023,740 Grand Total NIS 21,456,126,330
Design 1,015,751,187 Design 1,072,806,317
PMC 711,025,831 PMC 750,964,422
QA 1,015,751,187 QA 1,072,806,317
Percentage of Percentage of
Contingencies 40% 9,223,020,778 Contingencies 40% 9,741,081,354
Grand Total Grand Total
Outturn Total NIS 32,280,572,723 Outturn Total NIS 34,093,784,738
Outturn Total Inc. VAT 37,768,270,086 Outturn Total Inc. VAT 39,889,728,144
Table 85. Overall CAPEX M2 Table 86. Overall CAPEX M3

200 201
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.16 Mass transit network expansion beyond 2040

The 3 Metro lines considered in the Feasibilities being the first step of the deployment of
a large and interconnected mass transit network meeting the long term needs in the TAM
area beyond 2040, one of the requirements was to anticipate the next steps and consider
first ideas for the deployment of the network.
The process and outputs of this specific work are summarized in this chapter.
5.16.1 Zoning, assignment and corridors identification
In order to identify potential new mass transit corridors for the future, it was first necessary
to split the TAM area in macro zones and undertaking a demand matrix assignment based
on the Tel Aviv transport model data.
The corresponding "desire lines" were then superimposed with the Mass Transit network
in 2040 configuration, helping to identify potential new corridors where high demand was
not covered by an existing or planned line. This first part of the process is illustrated with
the figures below.
Figure 157. Coastal and Central main demand corridors
Central corridor
A first main demand corridor can be observed on the eastern part of the central area.
Following a North-South axis, it is composed of three major demand flows that do not
match with any planned infrastructure to efficiently address them.
• A northern flow, seeking to reach Bnei Brak and the central-eastern area from the
northern sector and especially from Raanana.
• A central-eastern flow, in the North-South axis, located between M1 and M3 but not
caught by these metro lines.
• A southern flow, in-between the southern and eastern sectors.
Figure 156. Demand matrix assignment and superimposition with the mass transit Coastal corridor
network
This second corridor follows the coastline between Bat Yam and Tel Aviv CBD and then joins
According to the level of demand, the identified corridors were splitted between: the northern part of the central main corridor through Bnei Brak. Its main characteristics
• Key demand corridors, suitable for heavy modes such as Metro are:
• Secondary demand corridors, suitable for lighter modes such as LRT and BRT • It goes through areas out of reach of M1. Although LRT Green and Red lines are on the
outer edges of this corridor, a complimentary infrastructure allowing a faster commute
These corridors served then as the basis for construction of the network expansion through the centre could be suggested.
scenarios.
• Between the coast and Bnei Brak, it is parallel to a Red line section with a high load
(around 8,000 passengers toward the centre in peak hour) that might exceed its capacity.
The corridor then joins the northern part of the central corridor.
202 203
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.16.1.3 Conclusion
The map below gives an overview of the identified demand corridors, main in Red and
secondary in orange. The following step of the study was to propose infrastructures
covering these corridors prior to building scenarios based on them.
5.16.1.2 Secondary demand corridors
Northern sector
In this sector, 2 corridors were identified:
• One connecting Kfar Saba to Petah Tikva and the north-east of Tel Aviv. High inter-sectors
flows were observed and the corridor currently do not meet any public transport offer.
• One connecting Kfar Saba and Raanana branches of M1, and the northern ends of M3
and Green Line. While allowing a better intra-sector transport offer in the northern
area, this corridor would also increase the connectivity of the network in the North. The
BRT Pink line was initially planned within this corridor.
• A southern flow, in-between the southern and eastern sectors.
Eastern sector
Figure 159 Summary of demand corridors
In this sector, one secondary transport demand corridor can be observed a few kilometres
to the East of M3 along a North-South axis. The modelled demand in this area is lower
than the one closer to M3 but can be consistent as a secondary transport corridor (not as
a metro) and is currently not served.
Southern sector 5.16.2 Suggested infrastructures
In the southern part of Tel Aviv, two secondary demand corridors can be identified and Based on the expected demand shown on the desire lines, on the length of the corridors,
mostly meet a strong intra-sector transport demand, currently not catered: and by analysing the trip production and attraction densities along the corridors, several
• One in the southern end of the sector, connecting Rehovot to Lod. The two areas are public transport infrastructures were suggested and discussed.
well connected to Tel Aviv CBD, but don’t have efficient public transportation linking
them together. This corridor continues in the North to reach the Purple line and the
southern part of the eastern sector.
• The second one is shorter and connects Assaf Harofe Hospital to the southern ends of
LRT lines Green and Red. The BRT Brown line was initially planned within this corridor.
204 205
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
M1 south-east extension in Lod
M1 south-east extension in Lod M4 in the east of Tel Aviv M4 through Tel Aviv CBD Additional BRT corridors
M4 through Tel Aviv CBD Additional LRT corridors
5.16.3 Scenarios
In total 5 scenarios combining the infrastructures listed above were defined and compared
through the model.
206 207
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.16.3.1 Summary of characteristics of the 5 scenarios

The table and graphics below compare the infrastructures of the five scenarios and the
currently planned network. Metro and BRT infrastructures lengths and number of stations
are increased for all scenarios, except scenarios 1, 2 and 5 which have a slightly shorter
LRT infrastructure with less stations than the one currently planned, due to the shortening
of the LRT Brown line, whose part competing with M1 is removed and not completely
compensated by the LRT Grey line.
Base Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5

Metro 141 185 167 168 168 188
length (km)
Network
LRT 121 119 119 150 140 119 Figure 160. Infrastructure length and coverage comparison
BRT 21 73 73 88 88 73
Total 283 377 359 406 396 380
Metro 105 140 127 122 122 141

Overall, all scenarios propose an increase in public transport infrastructure of 76 to 123
Number of
stations
LRT 192 188 188 230 221 188 kilometres, and a length of new metro alignment ranging from 26 to 47 km.
BRT 45 53 53 75 75 53
Total 342 381 368 427 418 382 5.16.3.2 Example Scenarios 1 and 4
Metro 30 38 35 34 34 38 Below are shown examples of scenarios 1 and 4, with corresponding maps and
coverage (%)
Population
characteristics.
Metro / 44 48 46 47 47 49
LRT
Metro/LRT 45 51 50 52 51 51
BRT
Metro 41 48 46 47 47 49
Employment e
coverage (%)
Metro / 55 60 59 60 60 60
LRT
Metro/LRT 56 62 61 62 62 62
BRT
Table 87. Comparison of infrastructure indicators
208 209
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.16.4 Main conclusions

5.16.4.1 Main corridors
Based on the expected demand shown on the desire lines, on the length of the corridors,
and by analysing the trip production and attraction densities along the corridors, several
public transport infrastructures were suggested and discussed.
Central corridor
• The central corridor is covered by M4 in scenarios 1, 2 and 5,
• The maximal load observed is in Ramat Gan/Bnei Brak area (10,200 pphpd) and is
significantly lower than the coastal option,
• Despite a relatively low demand, it was noted that having M4 along this corridor
improved connectivity and resilience of the overall network.
Coastal corridor
• The North section of this corridor, which all of the scenarios,
• Depending on the scenarios, the South section is served either by M4 or by the south
extension of M2,
Figure 161. Maps of network scenarios 1 and 4 • In scenarios 3 and 4 where the M4 follows the coastal corridor, the traffic forecasts
reach 22,000 pphpd, strongly justifying a Metro,
Scenario 1 focuses on 2 major metro developments: • In parallel, it was noted there is a potentially strong impact of M4 on LRT Red and Green
in the south of Tel Aviv (traffic decrease),
In this sector, 2 corridors were identified:
• The minimal priority in terms of connectivity and network resilience, whatever the
• The extension of M2 taking over the South-Eastern branch of M1 ;
corridor choice for M4, would be the extension of M2 towards M3 in Bat Yam, regarding
• The central alternative of metro line M4, combined with a northern alignment taking the short distance between the 2 lines and the interest of an additional connection.
over the M1 branch to Raanana, and a southern alignment crossing M1 and M2.A
southern flow, in-between the southern and eastern sectors.
5.16.4.2 Secondary corridors: Brown line and Yellow line
• According to the traffic forecasts from the model, this corridor is still relevant,
In addition to these new infrastructures, the LRT Grey (only northern part) and Brown lines
allow the coverage of secondary demand corridors, alongside with BRT Black and Pink • Recommendation: length reduction in the east by ending the line in Asaf Harofe Hospital
lines. (Beer Yaakov) instead of Lod in order to reduce the investment and mainly to promote
complementary with M1 until Ramle/Lod rather than duplication and competition.
Scenario 4 has M4 following the coastal demand corridor and serving the CBD of Tel Aviv,
while the central corridor is followed by a LRT Orange line between Rishon Letzion and
Ramat Hachayal.
Brown line
210 211
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.17 Evaluation of strategic goals

The purpose of this section is to evaluate if and how the planned 2040 network enhanced
with the 3 Metro lines meets the 8 strategic goals defined in the Mass Transit Strategic Plan
and presented in the general introduction of this document. Most of these objectives were
evaluated with transport model outputs.
5.17.1 Level of service

5.17.1.1 Transit speed
The target was set to an average mass transit network speed of 25km/h.
Yellow line According to the evaluation:
• Result for the full network (all modes) as a daily average: 24.5km/h
• Result accounting only mass transit modes (Metro and LRT): 35km/h
Average inner ring Average middle ring Average outer ring
16 km/h 25 km/h 32 km/h
• A very low demand, not exceeding 500 pphpd in Scenarios 3 and 4, was ovserved in
scenarios 3 and 4 which covered the Yellow line corridor with a BRT. Therefore, a bus-
In conclusion, this strategic goal can be considered as fulfilled.
type service is not relevant.
• Due to the good results of LRT scenarios in the same area and to the high population/
employment densities, this corridor could be to reconsider in the future as part of a 5.17.1.2 Service supply
larger mass transit corridor. The target was set to 100 yearly public transport vehicle.km per capita.
According to the evaluation, the network would reach 72.5 yearly public transport vehicle.
km per capita including all modes in inner and outer rings.
The plan focused on the metro system. The target will be achieved when BRT and bus
systems will be planned for 2040.
212 213
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
5.17.1.3 Accessibility In conclusion, this strategic goal can be considered as largely fulfilled.
The target was set to an average of 60% of the population with a travel time not exceeding 5.17.2.2 Modal split
45-60 minutes. The results of the evaluation are summarized in the table below: The target was a public transport share reaching 40% of total daily motorized trips.
The results of the evaluation were as follows:
Trip duration Total with outer ring
• General daily average of 39.5%

<30 min 57% • Morning peak hour average of 43%, based on the figures below per geographical
sectors:
<45 min 81%

From \ To Core and inner Middle Outer
<60 min 92%
In conclusion, this strategic goal can be considered as largely fulfilled. Core and inner 64.6% 44.1% 25.6%
5.17.1.4 Coverage
Middle 58.3% 39.4% 26.3%
The target was set to an average 60% of the population and employments within a
distance of 600m from the mass transit stations/stops. The results of the evaluation
are summarized per geographical sectors (rings) in the table below:
Outer 44.9% 25.2% 20.8%
Average
Inner ring + Total with In conclusion, this strategic goal can be considered as largely fulfilled.
Middle ring inner Outer ring
core outer ring
core-middle
5.17.3 Investment
5.17.3.1 Mass transit infrastructure length
Outputs 1 74% 53% 64% 6% 45% The target was set to 150 meters of dedicated public transport right-of-way per 1,000
habitants. The estimation was made considering 3.26M habitants in core, inner and middle
rings in 2040, considering the following modes:
In conclusion, this strategic goal can be considered as fulfilled when accounting the
first 3 rings. The figures are unsurprisingly lower in the outer ring where urban densities
are much lower and spread, and the coverage of the network reduced. The plan focused on • Metro: 138.5km = 43m/1,000 habitants
the metro system. The target will be achieved when BRT and bus systems will be planned • LRT: 115km = 36m/1,000 habitants
for 2040
With a total of around 80 meters of right-of-way per 1,000 habitants, the target
5.17.2 Usage is not met. However this calculation did not consider the length of the Israel Railways
5.17.2.1 Annual boardings network within the TAM
The target was set to at least 250 annual boardings per capita.
According to the evaluation, the annual boardings within the network (all modes and all trips
including inner and outer rings) would reach 350 annual boardings per capita in 2040.
214 215
5. Phases 5 and 6:
Feasibility Studies
area, so the figure could be significantly higher. Similarly, bus dedicated lanes
were not included in the calculation because the plan is not completed yet.
5.17.3.2 Investment per capita

This optional target was set to around 50,000 NIS per capita (2015 prices).
The estimation for the Metro only was made considering 3.26M habitants in core, inner and
middle rings in 2040, as follows: 91 billion NIS investment for the 3 lines (CAPEX chapter) =
28,000 NIS per capita.
Accounting the Metro lines only, the target is not met but more than half of it is covered.
This calculation should be completed at least with the investment costs for the first 3 LRT
lines (Red, Green, Purple) in order to finalize this evaluation.
5.17.4 Conclusion
In conclusion, at least 6 of the 8 strategic goals of the Mass Transit Strategic Plan are met
with the 2040 configuration of the public transport network, which illustrates the very
strong weight and influence of the 3 Metro lines over the whole network.
216
METRO NETWORK

Gush Dan Metro Applicability Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gush Dan Metro Applicability Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

METRO NETWORK

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

3.2 OPERATION  20 5.12 PARK & RIDE  193

3.3 ALIGNMENT  22 5.13 LAYOUT DESIGN EXAMPLE: RAMLE NORTH  195

3.4 UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES  23 5.14 UTILITIES IN TUNNEL  196

3.5 ELEVATED STRUCTURES  26 5.15 COST ESTIMATES: CAPEX  198

3.7 TRACKS  31 5.17 EVALUATION OF STRATEGIC GOALS  213

3.8 POWER SUPPLY AND TRACTION POWER  36

4. PHASE 4: ALTERNATIVES REPORT  48

Ministry of Transport and Road Members of the planning team

Eitan Thee Rodrigue Marquis - SYSTRA #MetroTLV - Israel's Transportation Future

Keren Katz Ganani CEO of NTA

Dr. Yotam Barlach

1.2 Strategic goals

1.4 Feasibility Studies phases

Phase 1 – Data Collection: Comprehensive review and analysis of the available

Phase 3 – Detailing of technical parameters: Definition of the basic technical

Phase 4 - Alternatives Report: Definition of the optimum transport system to cater to

The data collected included:

Figure 3. Maps from population data

Figure 4. Rail network and LRT/BRT projects

Figure 2. Geotechnical and environmental data

Israel Railways 49 500

Figure 6. Projects compilation and example of comprehensive local plan

Figure 9. List of municipalities meetings

3.2 Operation 3.2.2 DTP

Table 1. Fleet for a 180s headway

3.3 Alignment 3.4 Underground structures

Figure 7: Main driving factors in the design of the metro lines

Figure 12. Typical cross-section for single tunnel double-tracks

Figure 14. Cut and Cover type 1 – typical cross-section

• Design principles for cut-and-cover and mined stations.

Figure 12. Excavation Method: top down sequence

• Principles and examples regarding retaining structures

3.5 Elevated structures 3.5.2 DTP

Figure 3: Typical solution for emergency stairs in standard viaducts

Table 2. Brief comparative analysis table for standard viaducts solutions

3.6 Stations 3.6.2 DTP

• Key design principles for intermodality 3.7 Tracks

Figure 16. Examples of various acoustic treatment systems

• Examples of passenger information systems and list of passenger facilities

Figure 18. Typical trackform with embedded bi-block sleepers

Figure 19. Precast plinths with DFF fastening system

• Typologies of turnouts and switches 3.7.2 DTP

• Requirements for mainline tracks in elevated sections, based in plinth tracks

Table 3. Pros and cons between chosen configuration of three-rail or four-rail

• Example of configurations for arresting devices

Figure 25. Example of rectifier configurations (Secheron)

3.9 Communication Systems • SCADA

Table 7. SCADA interfaces

Table 8. General PSIM Organization

3.10 Rolling Stock 3.11.2 DTP

• Alternative detection systems 3.13.2 DTP

• Highly recommended the use of full height PSD

Figure 28. PSD system architectural elements

Figure 29. Interface Overview

• Functional architecture: use of a store value card

Figure 33. Examples of RAM performance indicators of a AFC device (typical)

3.14 Park & Ride

3.14.2 Sizing guidelines

Figure 34. Park & Ride example

Figure 39. M1 corridor before and after rationalization

Figure 38. Analysis of the initial M1 corridor before rationalization

3.2 OPERATION 20 5.12 PARK & RIDE 193

3.3 ALIGNMENT 22 5.13 LAYOUT DESIGN EXAMPLE: RAMLE NORTH 195

3.4 UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES 23 5.14 UTILITIES IN TUNNEL 196

3.5 ELEVATED STRUCTURES 26 5.15 COST ESTIMATES: CAPEX 198

3.7 TRACKS 31 5.17 EVALUATION OF STRATEGIC GOALS 213

3.8 POWER SUPPLY AND TRACTION POWER 36

4. PHASE 4: ALTERNATIVES REPORT 48