Non-Passenger Rail Right-Of-Way Assessment for Preservation

Non-Passenger Rail Right-of-Way Assessment for Preservation June, 2013 The Delaware Valley Regional Planning The symbol in our logo is Commission is dedicated to uniting the adapted from region’s elected officials, planning the official professionals, and the public with a DVRPC seal and is designed as a stylized image of the Delaware Valley. common vision of making a great region The outer ring symbolizes the region as a even greater. Shaping the way we live, whole while the diagonal bar signifies the work, and play, DVRPC builds Delaware River. The two adjoining consensus on improving transportation, crescents represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of promoting smart growth, protecting the New Jersey. environment, and enhancing the economy. We serve a diverse region of DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the nine counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, U.S. Department of Transportation’s Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Gloucester, and Mercer in New Jersey. departments of transportation, as well DVRPC is the federally designated as by DVRPC’s state and local member Metropolitan Planning Organization for governments. The authors, however, are the Greater Philadelphia Region — solely responsible for the findings and conclusions herein, which may not leading the way to a better future. represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. DVRPC’s website (www.dvrpc.org) may be translated into multiple languages. Publications and other public documents can be made available in alternative languages and formats, if requested. For more information, please call (215) 238-2871. Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1 Right-of-Way Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 Ranking the Rights-of-Way ................................................................................................. 4 Right-of-Way Score ........................................................................................................... 16 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 17 Figures and Tables Figure 1: New Jersey Freight, Passenger, and Abandoned Rail Rights-of-Way ........................... 5 Figure 2: Transit Scores Along Study Corridors (by TAZ) ............................................................. 7 Figure 3: Future Growth Areas and Freight Centers ................................................................... 10 Figure 4: Plan Centers ................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 5: Degrees of Disadvantage ............................................................................................. 14 Table 1: Average Transit Score along the Study ROW Corridors ................................................ 6 Table 2: Freight Centers Rank ...................................................................................................... 8 Table 3: Future Growth Areas Rank ............................................................................................. 9 Table 4: Plan Centers Rank ........................................................................................................ 11 Table 5: Environmental Justice Rank ......................................................................................... 13 Table 6: Interregional Connectivity ............................................................................................. 15 Table 7: Right-of-Way Final Ranking .......................................................................................... 16 Executive Summary New Jersey Transit, through the FY2012 Unified Planning Work Program, asked DVRPC to create a method to score and rank non-passenger Rail Rights-of-Way (ROWs) for future preservation. This list and method is not a reflection of the ROW’s current passenger or freight utility, although that was taken into consideration, but rather a consideration of the ROW’s future utility to the region. The method ranks the ROWs against each other to help determine priority in ROW preservation. In today’s difficult economic environment, preserving all ROWs is not a realistic possibility. The preservation of all ROWs is ultimately the goal, but for now, ROWs with the most future utility need to have priority over other ROWs. The method detailed in this approach tries to be “future proof” in that it does not specify for which purpose the ROW should be preserved, just that that corridor and ROW should remain intact for future transit or transportation uses, including freight, passenger rail, bus transit, or other transportation needs. This method prioritizes the ROWs based on a set of criteria that take into consideration current and likely future conditions along the ROW in the DVRPC region. Not all rail lines were included in this analysis. ROWs currently being used for passenger service were not scored. It is a reasonable assumption that these ROWs will not be abandoned. Lines that are already listed as abandoned were also not included in this analysis, as it is assumed that an abandoned line has already had its ROW disassembled. The ROWs in the study were scored and ranked by the following criteria: 1. Corridor Transit Score 2. Connecting Future Growth Areas 3. Connecting Plan Centers 4. Number of Freight Centers along the ROW 5. Environmental Justice along the ROW 6. Planned Projects 7. Interregional Connectivity Each ROW was sorted from the highest value to lowest value for each criterion. Each ROW was then scored by its percentage of the highest value. All the scores were then averaged for a final scoring. Based on this analysis, the Vineland Secondary was the highest-ranked ROW in the region. The lowest ranked ROW was the Southern Secondary. The table below summarizes the final scoring of ROWs in the region. 1 Right-of-Way Final Ranking “Transit Plan Future Freight Planned Interregional EJ DOD Final Line Score” Center Growth Center Project Connectivity Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Vineland 61 100 67 79 59 100 90 79.4 Secondary West Trenton 23 40 33 14 15 100 100 46.5 Line Penns Grove 32 40 50 100 46 0 50 45.4 Secondary Beesley's 61 40 50 21 54 0 90 45.3 Point Salem Running 32 60 100 7 44 0 50 41.9 Track Pemberton 49 100 33 43 48 0 10 40.4 Branch Trenton Industrial 100 20 17 0 100 0 10 35.2 Track Grenloch Industrial 70 40 0 21 38 0 10 25.6 Track Robbinsville 40 20 33 0 19 0 10 17.5 Industrial Southern Secondary 2 0 0 0 14 0 50 9.5 Source: DVRPC 2012 2 Non-Passenger Rail Right-of-Way Assessment for Preservation CHAPTER 1 Right-of-Way Evaluation Introduction The purpose of this study is to identify rail rights-of-way (ROWs) with the greatest potential for future use in order to prioritize them for preservation. DVRPC has undertaken two previous ROW studies: Potential Reuse of Inactive Rail Lines (DVRPC Publication 91040) in 1991 and Abandoned Railroad Inventory and Policy Plan (DVRPC Publication 97006) in 1997. Both studies catalogued inactive and abandoned rail lines in the DVRPC region and outlined strategies and potential reuses of the rights-of-way. The first study rationalized possible reuse of inactive rail lines by cataloguing inactive lines and screening them against future population and employment growth. Those lines are still abandoned or inactive today. That study used expected population and employment growth until 2010, and as such, the current study can be considered an update to that process. The more recent study provides a thorough history of the rail lines that operate and once operated in the DVRPC region. Generally, as ROWs become available they should always be purchased and preserved for future use. However, fiscal constraint may make the purchase and preservation of all ROWs infeasible. In that regard, a method to evaluate and rank ROWs for their future potential as either a transit right-of-way, or for freight, is needed. In the state of New Jersey, once a rail operator has been granted approval to abandon a ROW by the Surface Transportation Board, they need to offer the ROW for sale to the state, county, and municipality that it is in. As defined in PL 48: 12-125.1, the state has right of first refusal to purchase the ROW, and this study is designed to help NJ Transit evaluate and prioritize ROWs for future acquisition. In DVRPC’s New Jersey region, there are currently 11 ROWs, either active or inactive, with the ROW intact. For this study, already abandoned ROWs were ignored as the ROW has already been dispersed. The ROWs evaluated are: West Trenton Line Robbinsville Industrial Pemberton Branch Beesley’s Point Secondary Grenloch Industrial Vineland Secondary Penns Grove Secondary (including the Paulsboro Industrial and Shell Industrial) Salem Running Track Southern Running Track and Southern Secondary (analyzed together for

Load more