Report Submitted to:
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION One Montgomery Plaza Suite 201 425 Swede Street Norristown, PA 19401
DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACP Building 190 N. Independence Mall West 8TH Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106‐1520
Report Submitted by:
MICHAEL BAKER JR., INC. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 with ECONSULT CORPORATION 3600 Market Street, 6th Floor October 2010 Philadelphia, PA 19104 NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Background ...... 1 1.2 Study Area Boundaries ...... 2 1.3 Past Studies/Findings ...... 3
2.0 STUDY AREA CONTEXT ...... 5 2.1 Regional Demographics/Maps ...... 5 2.2 Existing Transportation Networks ...... 14 2.3 Regional Conditions Impacting Transit …………………………………………………………………………………..…….17 2.4 Community Needs ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……18
3.0 STUDY PROCESS ...... 19 3.1 Project Purpose, Steps and Key Milestones ...... 19 3.2 Public Involvement ...... 21 3.3 Study Goals and Evaluation Criteria ...... 22
4.0 INITIAL TRANSIT CONCEPTS AND PROPOSALS ...... 24 4.1 Evolution of Transit Recommendations ...... 24 4.2 Transit Service Concepts ...... 25 4.3 Refined Transit Service Proposals...... 27 4.4 Evaluation of Transit Service Proposals ...... 29
5.0 FINAL TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 30
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION ...... 33 6.1 Most Feasible Transit Scenarios ...... 33 6.2 Cost Estimation ...... 34 6.3 Local Government Burden ...... 36 6.4 Potential Revenue Sources ...... 38 6.5 Action Plan ...... 39
7.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 41
October 2010 Page ii
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Appendices
A. STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
B. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS Public Meeting Flyer Public Meeting Timeline and Plan Public Meeting Attendee Feedback Sheets Senior Facility Survey Responses
C. DRAFT TRANSIT SERVICE CONCEPT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
D. TRANSIT SERVICE PROPOSALS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
E. EVALUATION MATRIX AND METHODOLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
F. LOCAL MATCH COST ESTIMATES
October 2010 Page ii
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION now we want to expand [transit] service to more residents."1
Developing feasible transit investments to provide travel Responding to these concerns, MCPC secured funding options that meet community needs, especially in light and ultimately hired a consulting team to investigate the of the uncertainty regarding fuel costs, is the principle feasibility of providing transit in this part of the county. goal of this study. The effort was initiated by the The ultimate goal for this study is to develop a strategic Montgomery County Planning Commission (MCPC), in transit plan that can inform local communities and conjunction with the Delaware Valley Regional Planning potential service providers of the opportunities and Commission (DVRPC). The purpose of this plan is to commitments necessary for such service to be deemed provide a resource to local decision‐makers on the feasible. Integral to this process is the involvement of a strategic approach, financial expectations and range of community stakeholders who represent the implementation steps necessary to initiate new or interests of area residents and key organizations that expanded public transit services. would be involved with or impacted by any future
transit services in the area. As such, a steering
committee comprised of local and state‐elected officials, 1.1 Project Background chambers of commerce, and transportation providers, among others, was convened. Along with officials from The 17‐municipality area comprising the study region for MCPC, steering committee members helped to guide the Northwestern Montgomery County Strategic Transit the development of study goals and priorities, as well as Plan has historically had no public transit service. to inform the evolution of proposed transit concepts Currently, only pre‐arranged services (seniors, medical and ultimately recommended routes to test for assistance, etc.) and two shuttle routes operate in the feasibility. area. Though the exploration of additional transit options has been identified as a goal in regional planning exercises covering these 17 municipalities, years of relatively cheap fuel and a generally strong economy had made automobile use a predominate and logical mode of transportation throughout the area. Further challenging the initiation of more expansive transit is the rural character and relatively low population density throughout much of the area. As a consequence, for quite some time neither the citizens of the region nor local and regional officials considered pursuing expanded public transit.
The sharp rise in gas prices in the summer of 2008 changed this perspective. At that time, residents of the study area began to contact their elected officials to express their desire for alternatives to driving. State Senator Bob Mensch (Bucks, Lehigh, Montgomery & Northampton Counties) expressed it best by stating that, "With family budgets strained, residents are looking for alternatives to driving…the debut of the Upper Perk coaster last year was a good first step, but 1 Full quotation available online at: http:65//senatormensch.com/press/2010/ 0210/020110.htm
October 2010 Page 1 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
1.2 Study Area Boundaries A smaller shuttle bus service operates along two routes across certain communities, with limited coverage and The study area encompasses 17 municipalities located times of service. Notably, the Boroughs of Souderton within the northwestern section of Montgomery and Telford are not included within the study area County. The character of land‐use in the twelve (12) because SEPTA provides bus service between these townships (Douglass, Upper Frederick, Lower Frederick, areas and Lansdale Borough via the Route 132. Perkiomen, Skippack, Upper Hanover, New Hanover, Nonetheless, while these communities have not been Marlborough, Franconia, Upper Salford, Salford, and explicitly included, the study has investigated Lower Salford) is predominantly rural with some low‐ connections to the existing transit services within these density suburban development. Increased commercial, and other adjacent areas. The study area consists of industrial and multi‐family housing is located in and approximately 160 square miles and has a population of 2 around the five (5) boroughs (East Greenville, approximately 103,000. Further details on the Pennsburg, Red Hill, Green Lane, and Schwenksville) and demographics and existing public transportation along key transportation corridors. These communities services currently provided within or adjacent to area are depicted in Exhibit 1.2.1, and encompass the region residents is found in Section 3.0 of this report. of the County with no regular bus service from a large fixed‐route operator (i.e. SEPTA, PART; see Section 2.2). 2 US Census projected population for 2008.
Exhibit 1.2.1: Northwestern Montgomery County Strategic Transit Plan Study Area
Study area distance from: Lansdale, Mont. Co. ‐ 4 mi. Pottstown, Mont. Co. ‐ 4 mi. Quakertown, Bucks Co. ‐ 6 mi. Allentown, Lehigh Co. ‐ 13 mi. Reading, Berks Co. ‐ 16 mi. Philadelphia ‐ 23 mi.
October 2010 Page 2 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
1.3 Past Studies/Findings: elderly populations, housing density, and low vehicle ownership. The plan further states that The analysis of past studies shapes the approach to this “As the Region’s population grows, the need project. In particular, this study aims to develop public may arise to consider an expansion of public transit service proposals that build on previous transit service to cover more village centers, feasibility studies, complement existing regional plans, community centers, and regional retail areas.” and support connections outside the study area [pg. 127] boundaries. Comprehensive plans and relevant past transit studies are detailed in the following sections. The 2005 Central Perkiomen Valley Regional Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Goal Comprehensive Land Use Plans: notes the need for more coordinated transportation networks that consist of a While transit for northwestern Montgomery County has variety of transportation options, including not previously been examined in great detail, the need exploring additional transit options. [pg. 66] to expand transit opportunities is identified in the County Comprehensive Plan, as well as through the four The 2004 Indian Valley Regional Comprehensive regional comprehensive plans located within the study Plan has noted the need to “Encourage the area. Included below are brief highlights from past expansion of public transportation,” including plans, all of which can be accessed on the Montgomery “consider[ing] whether to pursue further public County Planning Commission’s website at transportation options such as municipal http://planning.montcopa.org (see “Plans”). shuttle services.” [pg. 110]
Notably, all of these plans were developed prior to The 2001 Upper Perkiomen Valley Regional recent jumps in fuel costs and economic declines, and as Comprehensive Plan includes as one of its a result do not reflect some of the primary factors stated infrastructure goals to “Explore mass influencing this current planning effort. Nonetheless, transit options.” [pg. 63] they demonstrate that even under less urgent conditions, the need for transit within these portions of the County has been a consistently highlighted theme. For example:
Shaping Our Future, the 2005 Montgomery County Comprehensive Plan noted that “As the population of Montgomery County increases and ages, the need for transit services will grow. The existing bus systems within the County will become more important during the next decade as will the need for increased public transit service throughout other underserved portions of the County.” [pg. 120]
The 2005 Pottstown Metropolitan Regional Comprehensive Plan notes in its Transit Needs Analysis that the need for public transit is driven by factors such as the prevalence of
October 2010 Page 3 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Relevant Transportation Specific Plans: facility. Strong community support for reestablishing rail service to the Borough was also noted. In addition to more general comprehensive plans, specific transit improvements have been studied that Quakertown Rail Restoration Alternatives Analysis could provide new connections to portions of the study (2007) area. Four (4) specific plans identified include: This study provided a long‐term vision for improved rail
Moving LANTA Forward Regional Transportation service connections, linking the current SEPTA Regional Development Plan (2010) Rail service to travel destinations in close proximity to Northwestern Montgomery County. The final This study highlighted improved and expanded service recommendation of the study is to establish a rail options for the Lehigh and Northampton Transportation service between Shelly and Lansdale (21 miles) linking Authority (LANTA), which operates in relatively close together communities along the tracks in Bucks and proximity to the northwestern portion of Montgomery Montgomery Counties and connecting with SEPTA Route County. One element of the plan involves expanding R5 trains in Lansdale. This study is ongoing, with the LANTA system into suburban and rural areas not revisions anticipated from Bucks County, Montgomery currently served by the existing fixed‐route system or County and the Bucks County TMA. which feature infrequent service. The plan recommends that satellite hubs be established at major employment locations and traditional urban centers, including Lansdale, Montgomery County, PA Emmaus, which is located approximately 9 miles from the northernmost sections of Montgomery County. Feeder service, potentially from other providers, could then serve this hub and the more frequent connections made available to LANTA’s fixed‐route system.
Emmaus, Feasibility Study for the Extension of PUT Service to Lehigh County PA Boyertown (2002)
This study proposed a potential route extension to Boyertown, Berks County via Gilbertsville, based on the conclusion that Boyertown’s higher density made it a more “transit‐friendly” community and that ongoing commercial development along PA 73 (Swamp Pike)
might support a route through New Hanover Township.
R6 Norristown Line Service Extension Study (2009) The route would operate as a deviated‐fixed route, with service reaching Gilbertsville via PA 663 (Charlotte This study identified Pottstown as a potential multi‐ Street) and connect with PART and SEPTA at the modal hub for rail service to Philadelphia and Reading, Pottstown Transit Center. with the aim of reducing automobile congestion within the US 422 Corridor and supporting longer‐distance Pottstown (rendering of commuting. The Pottstown station planning analysis potential new hub), indicated that its proximity to the PART transfer hub and Montgomery County, numerous well connected (pedestrian) destinations PA would make for a well‐suited multi‐modal transit
October 2010 Page 4 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
2.0 STUDY AREA CONTEXT Exhibit 2.1.1. Study Area Population Data
Municipal 2008 % Change The study area encompasses lower‐density Jurisdiction Population (2000‐2009) development, which can make route design and service Lower Salford Township 14,506 11% via fixed‐route transit a challenge. Some existing Skippack Township 13,453 34% providers, however, do operate within and in close Franconia Township 12,779 10% proximity to the study area. This section details the Douglass Township 10,143 11% existing transportation networks within the study area New Hanover Township 9,435 28% as well as the prevailing land‐uses and trends which Perkiomen Township 8,234 15% influence the future market for and ability to Upper Hanover Township 6,233 27% accommodate growth in travel demand among area Lower Frederick Township 4,813 0% residents and commuters. Upper Frederick Township 3,633 15% Pennsburg Borough* 3,302 18% Marlborough Township 3,265 5% Upper Salford Township 3,076 2% 2.1 Regional Demographics/Maps East Greenville Borough* 3,017 ‐3% Salford Township 2,523 7% The study area population of approximately 103,000 Red Hill Borough* 2,302 4% residents (2008 projected population), represents just Schwenksville Borough 1,325 ‐1% over 13 percent of the total Montgomery County Green Lane Borough 570 ‐3% population. A detailed breakdown of the most recent * Collectively referred to as Source: US Census population data for the 17 municipal jurisdictions is the Tri‐Borough presented in Exhibit 2.2.1.
Important in this study is an understanding of the spatial The demographics of most interest to this study include characteristics of its population. A series of thematic the distribution of population, population density, and maps have been developed to paint a portrait of study characteristics of both age (seniors) and income area residents and ultimately to help shape the (poverty level), all of which influenced the feasibility for connections established in the transit proposals the transit concepts developed in the study. To facilitate developed for the study. This mapping exercise for the the conceptual transit service planning, the following six 17 townships and boroughs of the study area was an thematic maps were developed: essential part of the strategic planning process, providing a snapshot of both current conditions and 1) Study Area Context potential trends. Identifying changes in the 2) Population Density demographics of this region and locating areas of more 3) Growth Areas transit supportive density and developments helped to 4) Senior Citizen Population both focus transportation resources where they are 5) Low Income Population most needed and where they could be most effective. 6) Land Use
October 2010 Page 5 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Study Area Context
Large portions of the study area are rural in character, but major population centers ring the study area, either on the edge or within a few miles away. Notably, this includes Pottstown, Souderton and Telford in Montgomery County, as well as Quakertown, Bucks County and Emmaus, Lehigh County. This is illustrated in the Exhibit 2.1.2, with a 6‐mile buffer from the study area capturing its proximity to other locations. In addition to the existing road network and transit routes, the map in this exhibit concentrates on identifying specific locations associated with employment, retail, and community‐based opportunities. These locations typically account for a significant portion of travel demand, whereby transit may be able to capture a percentage of these trips. As illustrated in the map, the study area features small concentrations of activity centers in certain communities, primarily the Tri‐ Borough (Pennsburg, East Greenville and Red Hill Borough), Boyertown, and Harleysville areas. It is important to note that larger concentrations of activity centers are located beyond the study area boundaries, emphasizing a potential need to enhance transit connections to these locations. Also, no hospital facilities currently exist within the study area.
Connections to medical facilities among transit‐ dependent populations are often important considerations in transit studies.
October 2010 Page 6 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Exhibit 2.1.2: Study Area Context
October 2010 Page 7 of 40 NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Population Density opportunities for connecting services to meet their shopping, medical, and other travel needs. The map shown in Exhibit 2.1.3 illustrates the predominantly rural character of the study area. Large Low Income Population expanses of low population density between communities present a challenge to designing efficient The map presented in Exhibit 2.1.6 looks at the transit solutions crossing through such areas. Locations concentration of low‐income population in the study of higher density housing are located in small clusters area. Locations of lower income population, as with within the study area, and are found predominantly in seniors, typically generate increased transit ridership. In the Gilbertsville, Tri-Borough, Schwenksville, and general, the study area does not contain large Harleysville areas. In these locations, sufficient concentrations of lower income residents. Income data population and travel demand may exist for localized proved difficult to obtain at more refined levels, travel, thereby favoring transit circulators which therefore this analysis was only able to examine low‐ connect residential developments to the nearby income population at the census block level. Transit activities outlined in the Study Area Context Map found service utilization is expected to be highest where it can in Exhibit 2.1.2. serve to connect affordable housing locations with lower income to employment opportunities for these Growth Areas residents. Whether through traditional transit or social services transportation, both low income and rural The map in Exhibit 2.1.4 graphically captures the populations typically represent the most isolated population trends illustrated in Exhibit 2.1.1. This map individuals from community services. also highlights the general location of proposed development over the last five years. A concentration of Land Use population growth can be seen in the PA 663 corridor and the Skippack areas. Development proposals are The map depicted in Exhibit 2.1.7 emphasizes the distributed throughout the study area, but the largest predominance of rural and open space that exists within concentrations can be observed at the periphery of the the study area. Some localized contrasts do exist, study area, particularly in the area outside Pottstown, however, primarily in close proximity in the Skippack, the Tri‐Borough communities, and along the Schwenksville, and the Tri‐Borough communities. These southeastern border of the study area. The relatively areas feature a diversity of multi‐family residential, wide dispersal of development across the study area can retail and industrial land uses which could prove challenge the design of transit services, as this may favorable to serving a variety of transit trips. Also, produce numerous trip origins and destinations that industrial concentrations can be observed in the cannot easily be served by one direct route. corridor between Harleysville and Souderton as well as along portions of the PA 29 corridor. These locations Senior Citizen Population could represent locations for van pools to serve employment opportunities. Senior populations often represent a higher potential for generating transit ridership. The thematic map in Exhibit 2.1.5 reveals that senior population is not particularly concentrated within the study area. Senior centers and adult communities are found at various locations within the study area and their locations with respect to adjacent activity centers may provide
October 2010 Page 8 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Exhibit 2.1.3: Population Density
October 2010 Page 9 of 40 NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Exhibit 2.1.4: Growth Areas
October 2010 Page 10 of 40 NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Exhibit 2.1.5: Senior Population
October 2010 Page 11 of 40 NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Exhibit 2.1.6: Low Income Population
October 2010 Page 12 of 40 NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Exhibit 2.1.7: Land Use
October 2010 Page 13 of 40 NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
2.2 Existing Transit Services region, which includes service to Franconia, Lower Salford, Souderton and Telford. The Coaster is a small Transportation corridors have historically defined fixed‐route bus system that serves numerous senior and development patterns in the study area. The region economically disadvantaged housing units and connects originally grew around railroad corridors, many of which them to essential destinations, such as supermarkets, have either ceased passenger service or have been shops and pharmacies. It also stops at the area's senior abandoned altogether. The Southeastern Pennsylvania centers. The service runs Monday through Friday from 8 Transportation Authority (SEPTA) operates the only rail‐ a.m. to 6 p.m. and the first Saturday of every month from based passenger service currently available to area 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. residents, accessible via stations located adjacent to the eastern border of the study area in Lansdale, Pennbrook, The PTMA also introduced, in July 2009, the Upper Perk and North Wales. Coaster, which provides service to the Red Hill‐Pennsburg‐ East Greenville area, operating on Wednesday through Within the study area, highway corridors serve as the sole Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. This coaster service, unlike source of transportation connections for area residents. the Community Coaster, does not feature any connections Main north‐south highway corridors include PA 100, PA to outside bus operators, and provides local circulation 663, PA 29 and PA 113. There is less accommodation for only. east‐west travel, provided by main local roads such as PA 73 and PA 63. South of the study area, Ridge Pike is another significant east‐west highway corridor. In addition, limited access highways border the study area (US 422 and I‐476), generally funneling commuter‐ oriented traffic toward the greater‐Philadelphia area. Peak hour congestion is a feature of several of these roads, with delays occurring in proximity to US 422 and along PA 29 most notably.
The existing transit service providers operate upon the area’s transportation network, and include the following services:
Partnership TMA – Montgomery County Transportation Management Association
The Partnership TMA (PTMA) is a non‐profit organization which operates two shuttles within the study area connecting residents to shopping, retail, and other transportation services. The PTMA aims to address traffic congestion, increase mobility and access to work, and educate children and adults on the issues of land use, transportation, the environment and healthy lifestyles3.
Since July 2002, the PTMA has been operating a route known as the Community Coaster in the Indian Valley sub‐
3 http://www.ptma‐mc.org/
October 2010 Page 14 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Transnet – Suburban Transit Network Service on these routes varies, but typical weekday operations span from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The Transnet provides demand responsive service for persons frequency of buses ranges from 30 minutes to 1 hour. with disabilities, medical assistance transportation, and Less frequent service over a shorter operating period is senior shared‐ride services for eligible riders. These provided on all routes for Saturday, and all but the Route services are subsidized through a variety of sources, and 139 provides reduced Sunday service as well. It is worth depending upon the type of trip, riders may not pay any mentioning that another service, the SEPTA Route 91, out‐of‐pocket expenses. While these transportation does enter the study area but operates only on Saturday, services are available to the general public, the full cost of provides three daily runs, and serves the Graterford transportation must be charged, which exceeds a typical Prison Complex. transit fare (comparable to a taxi fare) and therefore tends to be cost prohibitive. Transnet provides other specialized transportation services (corporate, school) on a contracted basis throughout Montgomery County.
The SEPTA Regional Rail Division operates many commuter lines, with the R5 Lansdale‐Doylestown providing service to three (3) stations in close proximity to the study area (Lansdale, Pennbrook and North Wales). The Regional Rail R5 service operates during the same span as buses, with service at the Lansdale station every SEPTA – Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 30 minutes from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on weekdays Authority (hourly after 8:00 p.m.) and hourly on Saturday and Sunday during a shortened service period. SEPTA provides multi‐modal transit service throughout the region, including several bus and rail connections adjacent to the study area. These routes include: PART – Pottstown Area Rapid Transit Bus Routes 93: Norristown‐Pottstown (Ridge Pike) Pottstown Area Rapid Transit (PART) is a publicly owned 96: Norristown‐Lansdale (US 202/Dekalb Pike) and privately operated system that offers bus service in Pottstown and adjacent communities. The Borough of 99: Norristown‐Phoenixville (US 202/Dekalb Pike, Egypt Pottstown owns and administers the system. Daytime bus Road, Schuylkill Road) service operates on six routes with service six days a week 132: Montgomery Mall‐Telford (Horsham Road, Welsh (Monday through Saturday). All bus routes operate to and Road, Forty Foot Road, County Line Road) from downtown Pottstown. Night bus service runs 139: KOP‐Philadelphia Premium Outlets (Valley Forge between approximately 6:00 pm and 10:00 pm Monday Road, Schuylkill Road, US 422) through Saturday. The Night Lines differ from the regular weekday service, although many of the same locations are
October 2010 Page 15 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
served.4 PART and SEPTA have entered into a cooperative agreement in which each bus system will accept the transfers of the other, thus allowing for connectivity between the two services.
LANTA & BARTA
Fixed‐route transportation is also provided by agencies in adjacent counties. The Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority’s (LANTA) main service is in the urbanized areas of Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton and surrounding boroughs and townships. Service to Emmaus in Lehigh County (the closest connection point to the study area) is provided hourly from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with buses every 30 minutes during the morning and evening peak commute times.
In addition, the Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority (BARTA) operates a fixed‐route system primarily serving the City of Reading in Berks County. BARTA does not currently operate any routes in the vicinity of the LANTA operates the “D” Route with the closest service to the study area; however, service extending from Reading to study area reaching Emmaus, Lehigh County. Boyertown (located at the study area border) has been initiated in the past and is considered a strategic, though not currently feasible, expansion goal. Currently, the closest BARTA route to the study area is Route 7 (Pennside), which terminates approximately 14 miles from the PA 100 interchange in Boyertown.
BARTA operates express and park and ride services which could serve as models for proposed services or provide future connections to the study area.
4 Additional route and schedule information can be accessed at: http://www.pottstownarearapidtransit.com
October 2010 Page 16 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
2.3 Regional Conditions Impacting Transit
Strengths and Challenges
In order to develop pragmatic transit proposals with the greatest potential for future implementation, the planning team conducted an interactive exercise with the steering committee members to help identify key strengths and challenges impacting the implementation of new transit within the study region. This exercise was facilitated by the planning team and the determinations were guided by the presentation to the steering committee of demographic information and study area conditions. Factors identified included:
Regional Strengths: Regional Challenges:
Newer housing stock; Low density development Captive populations of elderly (55+ Lack of consolidated activity and communities), low‐income, and disabled employment centers residents Affordability of new transit Proximate connections to larger, regional Diminished growth in the study area due transit providers like BARTA/SEPTA/PART to economic downturn Existing TMA Community Coasters Narrow, winding roads may not support Additional mobility through connections to larger transit vehicles proposed expansion of regional rail routes Large, heterogeneous region with Established multi‐municipal planning bodies potentially conflicting needs and interests New commercial development Lack of confidence in potential for transit
October 2010 Page 17 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
2.4 Community Needs concerns required an outward thinking and creative approach that considered utilizing non‐traditional As previously discussed, transit services within the study transit vehicles if necessary, but remaining true to the area have until now focused on providing increased primary project objective of exploring the feasibility of mobility options to senior, disabled, and economically fixed route transit alternatives in the region. distressed residents, primarily offering access to “essential” shopping destinations such as supermarkets, pharmacies, and other similar establishments. However, recent economic strains and volatile fuel costs have created new demand for alternative transportation options among the broader population in the study area, as was expressed by State Senator Bob Mensch in his recent comments concerning transit opportunities in the region.
This study has sought to adopt a broad vision of the public’s transit needs for fixed‐route service that is responsive to and accommodates new regional demand. The planning team accomplished the analysis of needs by first gathering input from steering committee members and other stakeholders regarding likely user groups and destinations types. In particular, while traditional social service uses remained a point of consideration, this study also examined uses linked to employment centers, libraries and community centers/YMCAs, shopping hubs, hospitals and medical office complexes, and high schools, colleges, and vocational institutions, among others (see study area context map in Exhibit 3.3.2). In doing so, this study has in turn focused on a more diverse cross‐section of the population than has typically been examined, including commuters, medical patients, and youth and student populations (high school and college level).
An additional, more intangible factor examined during this analysis was the extent to which new transit proposals would impact the landscape and environment in the study region. Given the largely rural nature of and considerable open spaces found within much of the study region, a key concern among constituents was the potential adverse impacts to the quality of life that could result from large buses or other transit vehicles. Moreover, from an infrastructure standpoint, many parts of the region have narrow or winding roads that also call into question the suitability of public transit vehicles. Responding to these and other quality of life
October 2010 Page 18 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
3.0 STUDY PROCESS 2. Envision Future Conditions
The second step documented trends and desired Although the study was conducted through the outcomes. Through this process, it became apparent consultants and MCPC staff, a steering committee that some desired transit services lent themselves to a consisting of over 20 project stakeholders (see Appendix corridor‐approach, while others were best suited for A) provided input to the planning team throughout the circulation among various destinations. As noted, study and shaped the content of this final report. One previous plans had already recognized that expansion of public meeting, held in the middle of the study, public transit service into certain areas adjacent to the presented proposals and solicited feedback from study area should be explored for future connectivity. citizens. Ideally, this study will serve as a catalyst for This stage of planning considered more long‐term local participation in the funding and implementation of planning objectives, such as shifting some trips currently any future transit initiatives. made by automobiles to public transportation, given potential changes in the study area population in 3.1 Project Purpose, Steps and Key coming years. Milestones Exhibit 3.1.1: Strategic Plan Steps and Key Factors The planning team undertook a multi‐step process in order to reach the final transit recommendations contained in this report. This process is illustrated in Exhibit 3.1.1, which identifies major project milestones and the factors influencing the completion of each.
1. Inventory of Existing Conditions
The first step initiated by the planning team involved an inventory of existing conditions. During this stage, the team drew upon the findings of previous planning studies and solicited input on relevant mobility concerns from the project steering committee. Data on key factors that could impact future transit services, including population density and growth, senior populations, and populations living in poverty, among others, was collected and mapped to develop a more complete understanding of these conditions now and over time. In addition, the team worked with the steering committee to develop study goals and program evaluation criteria, which were critical for the comparative evaluation of transit concepts conducted in later study phases. Some of the major issues considered during this phase were coordination with other current transit service providers, both public and private, and consolidation where possible with existing services.
October 2010 Page 19 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
3. Service Delivery Concepts 5. Feasibility Screening
The term service delivery refers to the type of operation During the feasibility step of the process, it was used by the bus service, such as route, frequency of important to recognize that informed assumptions were service, etc. This stage, therefore, focused on preparing necessary, and that the precision in estimating costs and various Service Delivery Concepts to test and contrast benefits is subject to variability. For this analysis, the appropriateness of certain forms of public transit to metrics were utilized as decision making tools and for the conditions identified throughout the study area. comparative purposes only, rather than to identify Thirteen (13) concepts were developed and examined specific investment levels needed to establish service. during this stage. Fixed‐route bus was the most easily Utilizing such assumptions, the team assessed the recognizable form of public transit; however it is general feasibility of the seven (7) remaining transit expensive and dependant on more intensive land‐use to concepts, ultimately finding three (3) routes most be both efficient and effective. As such, even as the suitable for the final phases of feasibility analysis (two of team investigated potential fixed‐routes in the study which were combined into one proposal) and another area, emphasis was also placed on demand responsive, two (2) routes which would be retained for strategic subscription, and other low density approaches to planning purposes (see Section 2.3). transit service delivery. National best practices indicate that these types of service tend to feature lower overall 6. Strategic Plan costs and are more suited to the nature of travel demand anticipated in semi‐rural communities. The last step in this process involved the documentation Innovative approaches from peer communities were of results, recommendations and implementation also examined at this stage, along with the possible strategies. As will be detailed further in the following benefits and implications of nontraditional transit section, a major component of the success of this services. process involved gathering sufficient community buy‐in. Such buy‐in was established early through steering 4. Refine Concepts committee engagement and ultimately came to fruition through a public meeting in February 2010. Following initial identification in Step 3, transit concepts were discussed and evaluated by the planning team and Utilizing input from these public engagement activities steering committee. Feedback was utilized to inform and all previous planning steps, this final strategic plan the refinement process, whereby the 13 broad concepts reconciles preferences with local commitments and were consolidated into seven (7) specific transit ultimately identifies action items and a dynamic means proposals. At this point in the study, it was determined to monitor progress towards new or expanded public to focus upon only fixed‐route transit solutions. These transportation in Northwestern Montgomery County. services tend to be more tangible to describe, have a more straightforward mechanism for costing (service hour estimation), and tend to be better understood by the general public. Refined proposals included route descriptions and rudimentary service plans. During the iterative process of refinement, small changes in routing and service plans were introduced, reflecting stakeholder preferences and input.
October 2010 Page 20 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
3.2 Public Involvement
Given the considerable geographic reach of the project study area and diversity of constituencies potentially impacted by any transit proposals, a critical aspect of the planning process was the continual engagement of community and regional stakeholders, as well as the public at large. To this end, the planning team worked to carry out several public involvement activities.
As mentioned thus far, the first action was the attendees had opportunities to review and provide identification of a project steering committee. The feedback regarding the set of seven refined transit steering committee grew throughout the study and concepts, and observe a range of information regarding ultimately consisted of representatives of local elected the study background, process, and future outcomes. officials and from local governments, regional transit Participants were able to provide formal comments, providers, and local and regional planning organizations both during the meeting and after, if they desired. This (see Appendix A). Balancing geographic representation feedback was later compiled and utilized to further and capturing the broad constituencies in the study area refine the transit alternatives. was a key component of steering committee formulation. Over the course of four (4) meetings, the In support of both the steering committee and public planning team worked with the Steering Committee to meeting, the planning team developed and distributed identify project goals, priorities, and evaluation criteria, electronic newsletters and a range of other materials to as well as towards the refinement of the transit help inform both existing study participants and proposals. additional stakeholders, providing them with project updates, status, ways to get involved and upcoming During this process, steering committee members were milestones. Materials related to the public meeting are vital in providing a broad understanding of local and included in Appendix B. regional support for new transit opportunities, as well as feedback regarding specific transit needs within the study area, especially those areas and populations for which services are currently most lacking. Members also provided critical information pertaining to potential costs of running different transit service types and funding availability to support any proposed options, along with valuable critiques and recommendations for improving proposed transit options.
In addition to this collaboration with the steering committee, the planning team facilitated one public meeting in February 2010 that brought together local officials, constituents, and leaders from businesses, nursing homes (and other elder care facilities), medical facilities, and other institutions likely to be most impacted by potential new services. At this meeting, Presentation board used at public meeting
October 2010 Page 21 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
3.3 Study Goals and Evaluation Criteria Steering committee members also helped to identify and then refine a series of overarching criteria through One of the initial activities undertaken with the project which to gauge the value of proposed transit concepts steering committee was a brainstorming session on key and routes. During an October steering committee elements and outcomes essential to a successful meeting, members voted on a set of 12 criteria based on project. The steering committee was fully engaged in which they felt were most and least important. These the drafting of overarching goals, reaching consensus, criteria were ultimately used as part of an evaluation and establishing ownership in governing the direction of matrix to narrow down the set of potential transit the study. Following this feedback and refinement, the services proposals to the final routes recommended for final goals of the project state that: both future feasibility analysis and strategic planning purposes. The complete set of criteria voted upon by THE NORTHWEST MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC the steering committee is shown in Exhibit 3.3.1, ranked TRANSIT PLAN WILL: according to priority scores.
Balance Transit Concepts with Limited Financial Resources: Recommend transit enhancements that recognize limited financial resources, while exploring potential new local/private funding options. Emphasize Transit Needs: Outline observed and stated mobility needs within the study area to develop transit concepts that attract new riders and accommodate residents unable to use other means of transportation. Ensure Consistency with Local Plans, Preferences, and Long‐term Vision: Incorporate, not contradict or preclude, similar transit principles identified in local, regional, and county planning documents. Support Collaboration among Municipalities and Share Resources: Describe benefits of coordination across jurisdictions, agencies, and other providers to enhance and market the efficiency of transportation services. Provide Clear Information & Tools: Establish steps to implement promising transit components and enhancements for consideration in future comprehensive and local area planning efforts. Incorporate Environmentally Sustainable Principles: Focus on transit concepts that provide alternatives to driving, support more efficient development practices, reduce emissions, and preserve resources wherever possible.
October 2010 Page 22 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Exhibit 3.3.1: Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Question addressed by criteria Steering Committee Ranking Voting Results Utilize existing How well does the concept incorporate More Important – 4 votes Most resources equipment or staff from other transit Less Important ‐ 0 votes Important providers/institutions to leverage connections to adjoining businesses, community facilities, or human service agencies? Limit cost How well does the concept fit within reasonable More Important ‐ 3 votes More anticipated funding limits? Less Important ‐ 0 votes Important Expand coverage of How well does the concept extend transit service More Important ‐ 3 votes More transit services to employment centers, economic development, Less Important ‐ 0 votes Important and unserved or underserved locations and populations? Meet the needs of How well does the concept meet the need of More Important ‐ 3 votes More people who must use captive users? Less Important ‐ 0 votes Important transit (captive users) Provide accessible How well does the concept increase mobility More Important ‐ 3 votes More mobility options options for persons with special needs? Less Important ‐ 1 vote important Increase the How well does the concept maximize existing or More Important ‐ 2 votes More convenience of public future public transit’s convenience? (Examples Less Important ‐ 0 votes Important transit include providing service during longer portions of the day, featuring easy to understand payment methods and schedules, and limiting travel time to destinations.) Attract people who How well does the concept attract choice users? More Important ‐ 1 vote Neutral choose to use transit Less Important ‐ 0 votes Promote transit usage How well does the concept support policy, More Important ‐ 0 votes Neutral marketing, and/or additional incentives to Less Important ‐ 0 votes promote transit‐based trips, (e.g. park‐and‐ride, employee discount, etc.)? Maximize ridership How well does the concept increase overall transit More Important ‐ 1 vote Neutral ridership within the study area? Less Important ‐ 1 vote Improve How well does the concept improve More Important ‐ 0 votes Less transportation safety transportation safety? Less Important ‐ 3 votes Important
Provide highly visible How well does the concept provide a highly visible More Important ‐ 0 votes Less transit services transit service, which reflects and promotes Less Important ‐ 4 votes Important community character? Reduce environmental How well does the concept reduce the negative More Important ‐ 0 votes Least impacts environmental impacts associated with Less Important ‐ 5 votes Important transportation?
October 2010 Page 23 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
4.0 INITIAL TRANSIT CONCEPTS Enhanced taxi service that works with existing private taxi service providers to extend hours and AND PROPOSALS coverage; Special purpose transit that would focus on 4.1 Evolution of Transit Recommendations special events and not operate on a regular schedule; and In order to reach the final transit recommendations Resource coordination between existing fleets of proposed in this study, the planning team undertook a private service providers in the region to three stage refinement process, detailed below and leverage existing fleets to provide service when illustrated in Exhibit 4.1.1. These stages are summarized they are not in use here with additional details and supporting analysis contained in the sections which follow. Stage 2: Transit Service Proposals
Exhibit 4.1.1. Evolution of Transit Concepts Using feedback from the steering committee and County Planning officials, these 13 concepts were screened and Transit Service Concepts refined down to seven specific transit service proposals. 13 Total During this process, the team was guided by the principles that transit proposals should:
Be located within areas where service is most practical based upon land‐use, demographics, Transit Service Proposals and other local characteristics 7 Total Leverage existing transit services and create new opportunities for connections. Support trip purposes and service to activity centers as expressed by the steering committee.
Final Transit Stage 3: Final Transit Recommendations Recommendations
2 Total The resulting set of transit proposals was presented at the public meeting on February 24th and again to the steering committee for review and comment. Along with feedback Stage 1: Initial Transit Service Concepts from these activities, the planning team utilized the evaluation criteria identified at the outset of the project in The first stage of this process entailed developing 13 order to rate and rank each of the seven proposals. The broad transit concepts drawn from the full spectrum of methodology used in the ranking utilized an evaluation potential public transit services. Included among these matrix, further detailed in Section 4.4 and Appendix E. As potential services were: a comparative analysis, high ranking service proposals were retained (or combined) to result in two (2) final Traditional fixed route transit with established transit recommendations and two (2) strategic planning stops and a regular schedule; routes. As part of this analysis, the planning team Checkpoint bus service with established stops, developed cost estimates for each recommendation and but without a fixed path to allow variation in the estimated the potential local cost burden in the final transit vehicle’s path; feasibility analysis (see Section 5.0).
October 2010 Page 24 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
4.2 Transit Service Concepts Transit concepts are summarized in Exhibit 4.2.2 by the general categories described above, with full concept The service concepts initially analyzed focused on the definitions and details included in the Draft Transit most promising areas for transit concepts to meet Concepts Technical Memorandum in Appendix C. community needs and reflected various levels of investment and system complexity. As a general guide for describing how these transit concepts would operate or Exhibit 4.2.1. Transit service concepts reflecting a range be viewed on a map, fixed‐route (or traditional bus of operating types service) operations may be assumed for several of the concepts. Fixed‐route operations typically represent the highest cost transit service delivery, with other operating types, such as subscription bus, requiring less overall service hours and therefore lower costs (see Exhibit 4.2.1). This study considered concepts that varied between fixed‐route and subscription services and during initial feedback, it was decided to not consider shared ride and demand responsive services. Further information on the terms used to describe the operating types Higher Lower Operating Costs Operating Costs represented by these transit service concepts can be Land Use Density Land Use Density found in a glossary in the Draft Transit Concepts Technical Service Efficiency Service Efficiency Memorandum in Appendix C.
Initial service concept categories of service included:
Subscription Loops – Low frequency service
connecting several communities across rural areas,
often indirectly.
Circulators (Fixed‐Route) – Operating within a single community or closely grouped communities providing for local travel.
Through Services (Intercity) – Connections to/from more urban areas outside of, but traveling through and thereby servicing the study area.
Other Strategic Transit Concepts ‐ Transit concepts that are not route‐based solutions, but rather look to institutional changes to transit service delivery. These were considered for their ability to yield incremental improvements. Transit services and routes would eventually be developed around the opportunities identified, which may include enhanced capacity among existing providers, strategic policy actions and initiatives, and other location‐based strategies.
October 2010 Page 25 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Exhibit 4.2.2. Initial Transit Service Concepts
Service Initial Transit Concept Description Type 1. Gilbertsville Loop Provides connections to activities in Boyertown, Berks County.
Allows for transfer and service to Pottstown destinations via PART routes. Loops 2. Pennsburg Loop Connects with Grand View Hospital and Quakertown, Bucks County. Could provide limited stop service for segment of route that matches PTMA service. 3. Harleysville Loop Connects with SEPTA Route 93 in Collegeville, serving Pottstown
Subscription (PART) and Norristown destinations. Route could extend further into Schwenksville / Skippack as needed. 4. Boyertown – Gilbertsville Connects retail centers along Route 100, schools, and community activity centers. 5. Tri‐Borough (East Service area extending along Route 63, connecting employment Greenville, Pennsburg, centers, senior facilities, and retail activities. Red Hill) 6. Lower Perkiomen Connects higher‐density residential located along this segment of
Circulators (Zeiglersville, Route 29 with community facilities. Schwenksville) 7. Harleysville Connects retail, higher‐density residential and senior facilities.
8. Reading‐Quakertown Provides connections to both Berks and Bucks County destinations, passing through the center (albeit the undeveloped) section of the
study area. 9. Pottstown‐Allentown Provides connections between two cities with robust local transit
Services networks (PART/LANTA) thereby increasing the destinations
served via transfers. 10. Limerick‐Souderton An example of a retail focused service, which could operate at scheduled intervals. Vehicles and services tailored to a higher‐end Through experience; however there may be the potential for funding partnerships from retailers. 11. Expand Existing Services Expansion of existing Partnership TMA, SEPTA, and PART routes (Frequency/ Coverage) to include evening and weekend services, in addition to higher
frequency peak services, as well as expansion of route coverage to connect at key areas or with other proposed transit concepts 12. Service Consolidation This method looks primarily at consolidating agency or private shuttle vans serving specific need clients (primarily seniors). Concepts
13. Vanpools A commuter vanpool concept could be utilized for long‐distance (greater than 20 miles) commuters or to address job/housing Other imbalances either to or from the study area. Major types include owner‐operator vans, employer‐ sponsored vanpools, and third‐party vanpools.
October 2010 Page 26 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
4.3 Refined Transit Service Proposals 6. East Greenville‐Emmaus Connector: A connector route between East‐Greenville that travels on Based on the refinement process described in Section 4.1, PA 100 to Emmaus, with a connection to the Lehigh and seven (7) transit service proposals (summarized below Northampton Transportation Authority (LANTA) bus and illustrated in Exhibit 4.3.1) were distilled from the system, serving Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton. initial set of 13 transit concepts. The results of this process, including an accounting of the evolution of 7. East Greenville‐North Wales Connector: transit concepts into specific service proposals, details This route links two existing PTMA services (Community regarding individual route designs, the potential Coaster and Upper Perk Coaster) and provides a advantages and disadvantages and general operating connection at the SEPTA North Wales regional rail station. characteristics (days of the week, hours of the day) of The route also passes by the Kulpsville Town Center, PA each route, and a synopsis of any relevant issues, are Turnpike park and ride, and Merck pharmaceutical provided in the Service Proposals Technical Memorandum complex. in Appendix D. These seven routes were presented to both the steering th 1. Boyertown‐Gilbertsville Circulator: committee and the public, via the February 24 “Open A fixed‐route circulator connecting numerous activity House,” for feedback to inform future refinement and centers in Boyertown (Berks County), an area with analysis. Building on this feedback, surveys of area senior relatively high density, and several locations in centers, which constitute a significant market for current Gilbertsville (Montgomery County). ridership on the existing PTMA Coasters, Transnet shared‐ ride, and private community shuttles, were conducted in 2. Pottstown‐Gilbertsville Connector: order to gain an understanding of travel habits and Connector route from the Pottstown Area Rapid Transit service needs that remain unmet in the region. (PART) hub at High and Hanover Street in Pottstown to the Gilbertsville Shopping Center. This route is intended to feature a timed transfer with an area circulator, or operate as a route extension of the circulator service (Service Proposal #1).
3. Schwenksville‐Royersford Connector: A service from the central Perkiomen Valley to a connection with SEPTA and retail centers in Collegeville and along the Route 422 Corridor.
4. Pennsburg‐Collegeville Connector: A connector route extending from the Upper Perkiomen area, south along the PA 29 corridor, and connecting with SEPTA Route 93 along Ridge Pike in Collegeville.
5. Pennsburg‐Pottstown Connector: A connector route between the PTMA Upper Perk Coaster at Pennsburg Shopping Center and the Pottstown Memorial Medical Center.
October 2010 Page 27 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Exhibit 4.3.1. Transit Service Proposals
October 2010 Page 28 of 40 NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
4.4 EVALUATION OF TRANSIT SERVICE they were calculated, including a detailed methodology PROPOSALS for the approach to evaluation of each individual metric and the scoring rationale used to assign values based on service design, is included in the Evaluation Matrix and In order to screen and refine the seven potential transit Methodology Technical Memorandum in Appendix E. proposals into the final recommendations, the planning From this approach, the highest ranking service proposals team utilized an evaluation methodology that ranked the included (1) East Greenville‐Emmaus [#6 in the matrix], (2) transit service proposals based on the most important Pottstown‐Gilbertsville Connector [#5], (3) Pennsburg‐ criteria identified in Section 3.3 and Exhibit 3.3.1. Pottstown [#3] and (4) Boyertown‐Gilbertsville Circulator services [#1]. A matrix was developed to prioritize and reflect a comparative ranking (through cumulative scores) for each service proposal. The matrix of metric scores for each of the seven service proposals is presented in Exhibit 4.4.1.
Exhibit 4.4.1: Evaluation Matrix
EVAULATION METRIC Tier A Tier BTier C
s e p c i r h e u s c r o n s e * e e d E e i i R n R g R e e g a O r g v e n C a c i s e n i S t s v ty s d o o L i U t i o l C h e i s x C A e b e e C S o E i t d s t C N s O e o a c t n s t z a P i i a e m e l e r r i c O e p o c t m t x c r t R i n SERVICE PROPOSAL L U M E A P I A P #1 Boyertown‐Gilbertsville Circulator 2113432329
#2 Pottstown‐Gilbertsville Connector 4222121131
#3 Schwenksville ‐ Royersford 0132213221 #4 Pennsburg ‐ Collegeville 4212111027
#5 Pennsburg ‐ Pottstown 1233223230 #6 East Greenville ‐ Emmaus 2324233338 #7 East Greenville ‐ North Wales 0223332226
Overal Criteria Score for ALL Proposals 13 13 14 19 15 15 15 13
SCORING VALUES *Weighted Score ‐ Multiplier applied: Tier A 3 In satisfaction of metric: 43210 Tier B2 Tier C1
Interpreting total score: 60‐45 44‐33 32‐27 26‐21 20‐0
Exceeds Highly Favorable Marginally Neutral
Favorable Favorable No The scores were derived objectively using measurable criteria. Additional narrative on these results and how
October 2010 Page 29 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
5.0 Final Transit extension to the Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority (LANTA) transit hub in Emmaus, Lehigh County. Recommendations The goal of this service is allow commuters from the LANTA service area to reach employment centers in the study area via public transit. Current LANTA long‐range Utilizing evaluation mechanisms detailed in Section 5.0, th planning indicates that Emmaus is targeted for the along with feedback from the February 24 public creation of a suburban hub which could feature numerous meeting, the project steering committee, senior center fixed‐route services operating at relatively high‐frequency surveys, and MCPC officials, three of the seven refined traveling into and out of the area. The potential for transit service proposals were ultimately selected for express bus service into the urban core of Allentown is further feasibility analysis, with two additional service also a future possibility. The study recommends that proposals retained for strategic planning purposes. The feeder service from the Tri‐Borough region be initiated to results of this final refinement are shown in the table and make a connection to this transit hub as it is established. evaluation results map in Exhibits 5.0.1 and 5.0.2, Initial service is envisioned to feature limited runs on respectively. Detailed descriptions of each of the final select days, in conjunction with the current three‐day per routes are also provided in this section. week PTMA Upper Perk Coaster operations. Ultimately,
this route may support peak and off‐peak operations, with Exhibit 5.0.1: Final Transit Recommendation Summary frequency as low as 30 minutes during each weekday to support job commuting. Prior to establishing any such Recommended for Further Feasibility Analysis commuter‐focused service, more detailed analysis of Service Proposal #2: employee location surveys and travel habits of major Pottstown‐ Gilbertsville Combine into one service: employers located in close proximity to the route is Connector Pennsburg – Pottstown recommended5. via Gilbertsville Service Proposal #5: Pennsburg‐ Pottstown Service Proposal #6: East Consider peak/off‐peak 2) Pennsburg‐Pottstown via Gilbertsville: This Greenville‐ Emmaus services recommendation favors the combination of two service proposals and therefore alters the route into Pottstown Retained as Strategic Proposals from the initially proposed Pennsburg‐Pottstown service Consider limited daily (#5). The initial Pennsburg‐Pottstown route featured a 5 Service Proposal #4: runs, paired with mile round‐trip deviation to the Frederick Mennonite Pennsburg‐Collegeville Pennsburg‐Pottstown Community. Outreach and feedback from stakeholders service indicated this would not likely provide a significant source Service Proposal #7: East Truncate route: East Greenville‐ North Wales # Greenville‐Harleysville of ridership, and the deviation would ultimately reduce the attractiveness of the service to the majority of passengers not wishing to make intermediate stops. It Routes Recommended for Further was advised that the southern portion of this route be Feasibility Analysis combined with the Pottstown‐Gilbertsville connector which also featured a relatively favorable evaluation. This
combination would be favorable for several reasons, Detailed service hour calculation, costing, and potential namely: funding sources were prepared for these routes to determine ultimate feasibility in either the near or long‐ term.
1) East Greenville – Emmaus: This route has the potential 5 Over 5,000 employees at eight (8) sites were specifically to leverage the existing PTMA Upper Perk Coaster with an identified, with the two largest firms consisting of Knoll, Inc., and Brown Printing located in East Greenville.
October 2010 Page 30 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Provides a Gilbertsville connection to Pottstown service proposal to be retained for longer‐term strategic independent of a circulator service purposes, but not to be considered for feasibility analysis Higher speed travel on PA 100 offsets less direct at this time. Such service, if ultimately implemented, route would likely only feature limited runs throughout the day. Less duplication of PART service within Pottstown 2) Pennsburg‐Collegeville: This service proposal faced significant challenges to ridership and operations; The new combined route would travel south from however the PA 29 corridor is identified for transportation Pennsburg on PA 663 and approach Gilbertsville via PA 73 improvements in upcoming updates of the County’s (Big Road). A minimum of two stops within Gilbertsville transportation plan. Additionally, the route provides two can be made, prior to travel on PA 100 into Pottstown, connections to SEPTA service both at Ridge Pike (Route retaining retail connections and service to Montgomery 93) and at the US 422 interchange (Route 139). These two County Community College ‐ West Campus. The locations are adjacent to large employment centers, and Pottstown Memorial Medical Center was removed from providing job access opportunities via transit from the this route, as it was considered best reached via transfer Upper Perkiomen area was a longer‐term strategic goal to existing SEPTA or PART routes, rather than introduce an expressed by the steering committee. While not additional parallel connection. Initial service is envisioned recommended for further feasibility analysis at this time, to feature limited runs each weekday, which eventually it is recognized that due to the long, low‐density nature of could lead to service throughout the day with a frequency this route that any future implementation of this service of about 90 minutes. would be focused on only a few limited runs oriented to providing peak commuter trips. Routes Retained as Strategic Proposals In these cases, the routes identified represent long‐term planning goals held by the County for the introduction of transit services. These routes also represent the next highest ranked transit service proposals following the evaluation process. However, they face more difficulty in implementation and are not considered feasible at this time, absent concerted efforts to improve the suitability of these corridors to fixed‐route transit operations. As strategic proposals, local officials are encouraged to work collectively towards the longer‐term goal of establishing these routes.
1) East Greenville‐Harleysville: This route is a lower cost alternative to the East Greenville‐North Wales service proposal. During the evaluation, it was recognized that several of the favorable scores for this route resulted only Expansion of transit opportunities to large‐scale employment from the potential to provide employee shuttle service in centers (Pfizer in Upper Providence Township, along Pennsburg‐ the peak hour in the vicinity of the North Wales SEPTA Collegeville route) remains a strategic goal. station (to/from Kulpsville). While this proposed truncated service would not be able to accommodate such station‐area trips, the cost effectiveness of a shorter route and linking the two PTMA Coaster services is a compelling factor and avoids excessive route length and service duplication. It is therefore recommended that this
October 2010 Page 31 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Exhibit 5.0.2. Final Transit Recommendations
October 2010 Page 32 of 40 NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION on Wednesday‐Friday to provide a once daily round‐trip option to outside destinations. This scenario represents a 20 percent reduction in the For the purposes of this study, feasibility is determined by local cost burden than the lowest service plan the local ability to implement service. This is determined identified for this route in Exhibit 6.2.1. by assessing the estimated costs associated with the recommended transit services, identifying factors 2) Pennsburg‐Pottstown (Scenario 2‐A): A once‐ influencing these costs, and illustrating ways to establish a daily round trip express service, similar to the mechanism to locally fund a portion of the services Reading‐Morgantown service operated by envisioned. BARTA. Exact timing of trips, where possible, should emphasize employment shift schedules 6.1 Most Feasible Service Scenarios for businesses around Pennsburg/East Greenville and class schedules at MCCC in Pottstown. This Given that significant revenue, especially at the local level, scenario represents a 62 percent reduction in the will be required for any of these route recommendations local cost burden than the lowest service plan to be feasible, the planning team, as a concluding task, identified for this route in Exhibit 6.2.1 defined a range of service options to identify the minimal cost of service on these recommended routes. The It should be noted that the reduced service hours will planning team recognizes that the amount of service negatively affect the attractiveness and convenience of hours provided, the principle component in determining the service, and therefore the more comprehensive the overall cost, is expected to be adjusted according to service identified for these plans (scenario 1‐D and 2‐C, available funding conditions that materialize beyond the respectively) should be pursued as funding is available completion of this study. For this purpose, a range of and increased demand for transit is anticipated. scenarios was developed for each of the recommended routes, reflecting various service plans that communities along the route could potentially justify and support (highlighted in Exhibit 6.1.1). Base scenarios are highlighted (1‐B and 2‐A) and represent what the planning team feels is the minimal amount of service that can be provided and still meet the goals and objectives of the original route design. Minimal service is only recommended for an initial short‐term trial period (i.e. 1‐ year), at which time service can be re‐evaluated for demand and continued funding commitment. These steps are outlined in the corresponding Action Plan (see Section 6.5).
The following details and costs associated with the recommended initial operating scenarios for these routes include:
1) East Greenville‐Emmaus (Scenario 1‐B): Peak service only (2 hours AM and 2 hours PM) to support the potential job access opportunities to/from this region. Last AM run and first PM run should connect with PTMA Coaster service
October 2010 Page 33 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
Exhibit 6.1.1. Operating Scenarios for Recommended Routes
Days of Hours Frequency Annual Estimated Route Week in Service of Service Service Hours Annual Cost Operation Available Provided East Scenario 3 Days (W, 9:00am‐ 90 Minutes 513 $60,000 Greenville 1‐A Th, F) 4:00pm – Emmaus Scenario 5 Days (M‐ 6:30am‐ 60 Minutes 754 $80,000 1‐B F) 8:30am; 4:00pm‐ 6:00pm Scenario 5 Days (M‐ 6:30am‐ 90 Minutes 1267 $120,000 1‐C F) 5:30pm Scenario 5 Days (M‐ 6:30am‐ 60 Minutes 1810 $170,000 1‐D F) 5:30pm Pennsburg‐ Scenario 5 Days (M‐ 7:00am; 1 AM and 1 581 $50,000 Pottstown 2‐A F) 4:00pm PM Express via Scenario 5 Days (M‐ 7:30am‐ 120 1742 $160,000
Gilberts‐ 2‐B F) 5:30pm Minutes Scenario 5 Days (M‐ 7:30am‐ 90 Minutes 2264 $200,000 ville 2‐C F) 5:30pm
Note: Yellow shading denotes Initial Recommended Scenario
6.2 Cost Estimation This cost analysis excludes any revenue forecasting/fare policy to offset these costs. As a general observation of Order of magnitude cost estimations were prepared for suburban/rural transit operations, this revenue seldom the various service proposals. At the feasibility stages of exceeds 10 percent of overall expenses. Therefore, development, this included developing rudimentary ridership revenue is not anticipated to provide a major service plans and operating cost assumptions based on source of funding for the service, and its ability to offset potential operators of the service. At this stage of costs is considered negligible and not included at this planning, a specific operator, such as SEPTA or PART for stage of feasibility analysis. example, cannot and should not be assumed. Rather, since operating costs will vary based upon the The costs derived for this plan reflect operating costs for management and organizational structure of the ultimate additional service hours and vehicle procurement costs service provider, a general estimate was used initially and (both for new services and regularly needed fleet applied to both a low and high level of annual service replacement). The operating cost methodology assumed hours (based on how often buses would run) associated a baseline cost of approximately $75.00 per hour for fixed with each route. route services. This figure was derived from analysis of
SEPTA, PART and Transnet providers, as well as a Specific steps utilized for generating cost estimates are comparative review of small fixed‐route systems as listed below, with details concerning each step included in reported in the National Transit Database (NTD), in the Costing Methodology section of Appendix E: recognition that each agency has a different cost
structure. This baseline cost serves as a target for any 1. Determine total service hours future operating agreement, as the feasibility assessment 2. Determine cycle times ultimately hinges on competitive and efficient operating 3. Apply capital and operating cost assumptions costs for this service to be practical. Capital cost 4. Annualize Costs methodology primarily accounts for ordinary vehicle
October 2010 Page 34 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
replacement. Additional costs anticipated would include Potential transit operators appear in the columns of the procurement of shelters, signage, and facilities. Typically, table and recommended routes are the rows. Each route these costs can be offset by local sponsorship. A has a high and low range of annual service hours. This comprehensive table containing the service plan and cost range is achieved by adjusting the frequency of bus details behind the cost estimates for all service proposals service (minutes between runs) and this is reflected in the is contained in Appendix E. route description. Each transit operator has an assumed operating cost/revenue hour, and this is applied to the For the two recommended services, the planning team annual service hours to produce the various cost felt it important to further develop the range of costs estimates. The mid‐point range of all cost estimates, which would be anticipated by specific service operators. factoring both the number of service hours and operator This is in order to illustrate that a large fixed‐route and costs has been termed the “Baseline cost range”. All cost multi‐modal system provider such as SEPTA features a estimates within or below the “Baseline cost range” are higher cost with a more sophisticated organizational highlighted. Exhibit 6.2.1 represents the central structure. Services provided by increasingly smaller component in determining the financial feasibility of the systems, such as LANTA, BARTA or PART, tend to have low recommended routes, and provides insight into the cost structures. A community based entity (Transnet) comparative trade‐offs between levels of service and represents even lower costs per service hour as overhead, ultimate operator. Other factors, however, such as labor and other rates are scaled more to the local level existing transit connections, access to outside funding, (typically the lowest expense achievable outside of using and experience operating the type of services envisioned volunteer run‐organizations). Exhibit 6.2.1 provides should also shape the future selection of a transit service estimates of the range of costs associated with each provider for these services. recommended route. A guide to Interpreting Exhibit 6.2.1 follows:
Exhibit 6.2.1. Final Transit Recommendations ‐ Estimated Costs by Potential Service Operator Recommendation Annual Cost Estimates (2010 Dollars in Thousands) Service Hours SEPTA LANTA BARTA PART Transnet East Greenville ‐ Emmaus HIGH – Bus every 60 mins. 1810 $275 $206 $166 $156 $146 LOW – Bus every 90 mins. 1267 $162 $122 $99 $93 $88 Baseline cost range = $100,00 ‐ $170,000 Pennsburg – Pottstown HIGH ‐ Bus every 90 mins. 2264 $337 $250 $201 $189 $177 LOW – Bus every 120 mins. 1722 $215 $161 $130 $122 $114 Baseline cost range = $130,000 ‐ $200,000 NOTE: Operating cost data provided through the National Transit Database and financial information supplied by various operators, reported as “Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour.” Figures include a 10% contingency.
October 2010 Page 35 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
6.3 Local Match For the East Greenville‐Emmaus route, a two‐thirds local match applied to the baseline cost amounts to $66,000 to $112,000, depending on the service level for the route. Many small transit systems are run by city and county For the Pennsburg‐Pottstown via Gilbertsville route, the agencies that do not specialize in transit. For the two‐thirds local match portion of the baseline cost is purposes of this study, the planning team analyzed between $86,000 and $132,000, again depending on the assumptions associated with municipalities contributing service level assumed. Using these estimates for the local to and contracting the recommended new transit services match, a critical next step is determining an appropriate to one of the operators identified in Exhibit 6.2.1. The allocation arrangement for these costs among the option also exists to bid the service to outside private individual municipalities in order to quantify the benefits transit operators as well, with the potential for increased received by each. Central to this process is the use of a private contributions or higher fares (potentially full cost, methodology that is both equitable and fair, to the extent or market rate paid by the rider had been proposed) that such factors will play a crucial role in the political which ultimately would change the local match feasibility of any future transit initiatives. assumptions. This study does not recommend any particular approach. While more knowledgeable of the This study examines three possible distribution local area and likely best qualified, the willingness of the methodologies. Each is summarized below, with a side‐ local operators presented in Exhibit 6.2.1 to initiate these by‐side cost comparison for all three methodologies routes, even as fully funded services, cannot be included in Exhibit 6.2.1 and complete cost breakdowns in guaranteed. Section 6.5 presents further details on Appendix F. These methodologies include: establishing such service. This section considers the financial contributions required at the local‐level, to (1) an even distribution among all municipalities touched support contracting a transit operator for the by a proposed route; recommended routes. Specific analysis looks at methodologies to allocate the cost among the public (2) distribution of costs based on the number of miles of proposed transit route within a municipality; and sector, users, and private partners. Given that a relatively small portion of such costs are ultimately borne by riders (3) distribution of costs based on the number of residents themselves or private sector partners and/or sponsors, (and by proxy, potential transit users) from each the majority of costs are most likely to be shouldered by municipality living within a ½ mile buffer zone from the some combination of Federal, state, county, and local proposed transit route. government funding. This study assumes that roughly one‐third of the overall cost of the recommendations is While this study does not seek to endorse or promote covered by state and Federal funding, with the remaining any one of these methodologies over the others, there two‐thirds allocated among the individual municipalities are several observations to can be made regarding each. 6 benefiting from the proposed routes . Also, in order to leverage federal programs, it is typically required that The results of applying these methodologies to the route match funds come from non‐federal sources. recommendations are presented in Exhibit 6.3.1. In observation of the results, the even distribution approach offers a very clear and easily understandable mechanism for sharing the local match. Similarly, the route distance 6 Representing the funds derived locally to leverage additional approach seems equitable in theory, given that state and federal grants. While in some historic instances, this municipalities with the most routing in their area would may be as low as 10% of service costs, the current economic be likely have the greatest opportunities to use those climate dictated the requirement of a majority of funding services and therefore should contribute accordingly. provided locally, with a resultant conservative approach to securing additional funds outside the study area. Finally, the residential population approach provides a
October 2010 Page 36 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
distribution of cost allocation based on the number of residents who live within a ½ mile of the route, under the assumption that areas with more residents near a route
stand to benefit to a greater extent from that route.
General approaches to raise these funds, as well as the remaining one‐third from state and federal sources are detailed in the next section. Going forward, future feasibility assessments of the proposed transit recommendations will need to quickly and openly engage all municipalities likely to benefit from routes or potentially face a cost burden.
Exhibit 6.3.1. Local Match Methodology Summary
Even DistributionRoute Distance in Municipality Residents w/in 1/2 Mile Buffer (low) (High) Value (Low) (High) Value Low High East Greenville‐Emmaus ($100K) ($170K) (miles) ($100K) ($170K) ($100K) ($170K) East Greenville$ 13,200 $ 22,440 0 $ ‐ $ ‐ 1468$ 12,057 $ 20,496 Upper Hanover$ 13,200 $ 22,440 2.36$ 14,977 $ 25,461 1031$ 8,468 $ 14,395 Emmaus$ 13,200 $ 22,440 0.4$ 2,538 $ 4,315 2038$ 16,738 $ 28,455 Hereford $ 13,200 $ 22,440 2.21$ 14,025 $ 23,843 967$ 7,942 $ 13,501 Upper Milford$ 13,200 $ 22,440 5.43$ 34,460 $ 58,581 2532$ 20,795 $ 35,352 TOTAL$ 66,000 $ 112,200 10$ 66,000 $ 112,200 8,036$ 66,000 $ 112,200 Pennsburg‐Pottstown via (low) (High) Value (Low) (High) Value Low High Gilbertsville ($130K) ($200K) (miles) ($130K) ($200K) ($130K) ($200K)
Pottstown$ 12,257 $ 18,857 4.32$ 20,603 $ 31,698 14,807$ 46,773 $ 71,958
W Pottsgrove$ 12,257 $ 18,857 0 $ ‐ $ ‐ 721$ 2,278 $ 3,504
Lower Pottsgrove$ 12,257 $ 18,857 0.98$ 4,674 $ 7,191 695$ 2,195 $ 3,378 Upper Pottsgrove$ 12,257 $ 18,857 2.88$ 13,736 $ 21,132 1998$ 6,311 $ 9,710 Pennsburg$ 12,257 $ 18,857 0.19$ 906 $ 1,394 2348$ 7,417 $ 11,411 New Hanover$ 12,257 $ 18,857 5.49$ 26,184 $ 40,282 1315$ 4,154 $ 6,391 Douglass$ 12,257 $ 18,857 4.13$ 19,697 $ 30,304 5278$ 16,672 $ 25,650 TOTAL$ 85,800 $ 132,000 17.99$ 85,800 $ 132,000 27,162$ 85,800 $ 132,000
October 2010 Page 37 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
6.4 Potential Revenue Sources Special assessments – Special assessments represent fees This plan proposes an immediate and sustained increase charged against property within a geographically defined in funding for transit initiatives. The exploration of district to finance specific capital improvements or possible new funding mechanisms is crucial to achieving services. Financing through special assessments avoids the goals and objectives this study has established. some of the legal restrictions on local taxation and Regardless of the allocation methodology used, achieving borrowing, which may be more politically acceptable to the local cost thresholds presented in this study could taxpayers than other sources of revenue and can be used pose a significant burden on local economies. The in addition to exactions. remaining one‐third of funding required from County, State and other sources could also present significant Parking Fees ‐ Implementing a fee for parking generates challenges as these budgets are constrained as well. funding for transit projects, as well as provide a greater Historically, new transit funding has been funded through incentive to utilize commuter programs those fees would focused and deliberate solicitation of grant money, yet it help to fund. This method is most applicable in the more is recognized by the planning team that longer‐term and dense boroughs, and cooperation from local officials and stable funding options for the services identified in this businesses is vital to make this program successful. A plan will need to reach beyond mechanisms such as these. variety of approaches include adjusting public parking This section presents several funding options utilized in charges—parking meter payments, parking violation fines, similar communities to increase revenue for transit and monthly permits for public parking lots. services. It is assumed that while some of these methods are not viable in the current economic conditions, these Student Activity Fees – This option most applies to a circumstances will change over the lifetime of this program that gives students enrolled in participating post‐ strategic plan. Local funding may also constitute secondary institutions unlimited access to local transit. increasing county contributions to the Transit Funding Programs are typically funded through mandatory fees Grant, an annual program that provides up to $20,000 for that eligible students pay in each term in which they are contracted transit services around Montgomery County. registered. Fees are transferred to the local transit authority to fund the required transit service. This Local Revenue Considerations method is not typically applied to smaller community colleges (often commuter‐based), but could represent a Expansion of TMA Membership Dues – If modest source of funding and a new amenity for MCCC recommendations are selected to be operated under a students. TMA arrangement, one method for funding such programs is through membership dues. The dues are usually calculated based on the number of employees of participating organizations. Service expansion would need to coincide with the potential to increase membership as a result of the service provided.
Development Impact Fees ‐ Impact fees are appropriate for facilities and capital expenditures, though not necessarily for continual operating funds. One approach, however, is to place funds collected from impact fees into a Transportation Demand Management trust which can then be distributed through a TMA or other body to New developments, such as those around the Upland Square various initiatives. High growth corridors would be best Shopping Center, could be served by transit and provide impact suited for this funding for transit improvement. fee funding to mitigate congestion.
October 2010 Page 38 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
State / Federal Revenue Considerations operating in isolation, it is preferable to identify existing operators, with experience in pursuing and maximizing Other funding considerations bring significant the benefits from these federal and state programs, to implications. Act 44 was established in 2007 to provide a administer the pursuit of state and federal funds. steady source of funds for existing transit operators. This funding would make start‐up operations such as those envisioned through this study, or the availability of 6.5 Action Plan increased grant funding from the Commonwealth, more likely. Toll revenues from I‐80 would have been used to There are a number of issues for decision‐makers to support this funding increase. An application to permit consider when looking at future implementation of this this arrangement, however, was denied by the USDOT in plan, and timely decisions are necessary in order to allow early 2010. Therefore, the current climate as of the sufficient time for the start‐up of service. Implementation writing of this report is that existing transit systems, let of any of these transit services represents a commitment alone new proposed services, will need to compete for from project stakeholders to begin the subsequent steps what is now an unsustainable goal of stable transit necessary to further define, administer and provide for funding. the ongoing operations of the system to meet the region’s shifting mobility needs. It is important that a champion For Federal grant funding mechanisms (transit formula for transit in Northwestern Montgomery County emerges funds) there are strict accessibility requirements that following this process to lead decision‐makers through 7 must be met . Generally, Federal Transit Administration these steps, which are necessary to establish the route (FTA) funds are available to designated recipients that recommendations. must be public bodies (i.e. states, cities, towns, regional governments, transit authorities, etc.) with the legal STEP #1 –Communicate the Transit Vision authority to receive and dispense federal funds. The The steering committee for this study expanded as recipients of these grants are responsible for managing interest in the potential service recommendations grew. their projects in accordance with federal requirements. The engagement of other stakeholders, such as local FTA conducts oversight reviews to ensure that these elected officials and community senior centers also requirements are met, such as fixed‐route services provided valuable feedback and spurred more interest. It providing a complimentary paratransit service in is important to capture this momentum, particularly accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act among the local jurisdictions, and beneficiaries of any (ADA). Accessible transit to persons with disabilities future services. To this end, an essential part of growing would need to be provided during the same operating the vision for new transit service proposals will involve hours and within three‐quarter (¾) mile of the proposed outreach and one‐on‐one meetings beginning at the route. A possible remedy to this requirement would conclusion of this study. involve operating the service as a deviated fixed‐route system, whereby individuals within three‐quarter (¾) mile STEP #2 – Establish Funding Commitments of the route are able to schedule and pre‐arrange the The goal of Step #1 is to facilitate buy‐in from local transit vehicle to travel directly to/from their trip origin jurisdictions and funding partners solicited in this step. and destination. These deviations, however, would affect The amount of funds anticipated should be agreed upon the running times and convenience of transit for others. at this stage with each participant. The duration of Given the limited nature of these recommendations funding commitments (i.e. 2 year pilot program, etc.) as
7 well as the expectations from the community on the See Innovative Financing Techniques for America’s Transit measures for success and return on investment Systems: http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/finance/grants_financing_3530 anticipated from supporting these transit services should .html also be outlined.
October 2010 Page 39 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
STEP #3 – Establish Necessary Agreements STEP #6 – Monitor Plan to Reflect Continual Progress In this step, a selection committee of stakeholders and Depending on the timeframe established in the funding funding partners solicits a service provider to assist in commitments (Step #2), oversight of the service should be design, staffing, and all other facets of daily transit tracked based on simple service performance measures operations. This report indicated comparative cost and (i.e. passenger/hour) to determine any needed service differentiation among likely providers, such as modifications and assess the route success. The service SEPTA, PART, or PTMA. This list should not be considered scenarios should be revisited at this time to determine if exhaustive, and other interested and cost‐competitive increased transit service is warranted. As a strategic plan, transit providers may be identified for provision of transit it is recognized that funding and demographic conditions services. Continued exploration for wholly private‐sector will change the environment for transit on a continuous funded and/or operated transit to specific job‐sites could basis. Therefore, it is important to monitor these also result in an agreement for funding or operation of conditions and revisit the transit planning process at services that meet specific employer needs. If the regular intervals (typically every five years). operations will be purely public, supported by traditional government funding, any remaining cost/revenue sharing agreements among local jurisdictions should be finalized at this time.
STEP #4 – Prepare Service Recommendations This step, preferably conducted in conjunction with Step #3, represents the selection of one specific operating scenario outlined for the recommended routes (see Exhibit 6.1.1). At this stage, the scenario selection can be made based upon the revenue commitments established in Step #2. Specific route details, such as vehicle specifications, stop locations, and administrative oversight considerations can also be defined, replacing earlier assumptions. These elements will enable an accurate accounting of all expenditure items associated with the funding commitments.
STEP #5 – Initiate Transit Service A concerted effort to market and promote the new service is undertaken in this step, through actions such as continuing to build constituency among funding partners and local policy‐makers that supports continued transit usage. Where possible, consolidation of some services (i.e. feeder routes from private senior shuttles) could occur at this point, freeing these resources for other travel purposes. New opportunities to secure revenue and develop increased ridership will remain an ongoing effort.
October 2010 Page 40 of 40
NORTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN
team feels that the two recommended routes through the 7.0 CONCLUSIONS study area, East Greenville‐Emmaus and Pennsburg‐
Pottstown reflect the best possible outcomes of this Is transit feasible within the study area? approach. Further discussion and outreach to the communities, potential businesses and locations served, The ultimate determinants of feasibility are the local and general public beyond the scope of this study are funding requirements presented in this plan. The encouraged. These discussions will be facilitated with planning team concludes that in light of current economic definitive routes and service structures, the conditions and the estimated returns on investment recommendations of this study, rather than abstract (increased ridership, decreased traffic), that the discussions of transit service expansion. recommended transit routes are not feasible at present. This study recognizes the tireless effort of existing transit Commitments for these funds, often at the expense of operators to design and secure funding for routes in the other programs, represent critical decisions that must be suburban and rural locations studied in this report. The made. In order to hold harmless existing and budgeted input received through the steering committee on the programs, all the potential options at the disposal of local day‐to‐day realities of transit operations was invaluable to governments to generate additional revenue must be the planning team. This input has guided the final more fully developed than this plan could analyze. The conclusion that the local funding commitment for the planning team feels that feasibility dependant on recommended routes in this plan: 1) not impact existing predominantly local funding is not a fatal flaw in this funding streams supporting current services and 2) analysis, as it reflects the best approach to both manage strongly demonstrate the need for new local transit and control the system, and leverage the limited and initiatives in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and competitive Federal and State grant programs available. manage expectations that such initiatives should be more self‐sufficient than ever before. The strategic nature of As a strategic plan, however, it is important to understand this plan is such that the community needs for public that even though the recommended routes are not transit will persist, and as economic conditions change, considered feasible, continued alignment of the the ability to advance one or more of the recommended community vision (See Section 6.5, Step #1) is both transit service scenarios into revenue operations will necessary and independent of current feasibility. For this come closer to fruition. reason, this study answers the question of feasibility through a strategic process, providing education, methodology, and resources for decision‐makers to be able to draw conclusions as financial and demographic conditions change. In summary, these major steps included:
• Analysis of the needs; • Development of suitable transit concepts; • Refinement into specific route recommendations; and, • Study of financial implications of establishing service
During each of these steps, this plan documented efforts to contain overall costs, integrate with existing transit services, and generate maximum ridership. The planning
October 2010 Page 41 of 40
Appendix A APPENDIX A: Northwestern Montgomery County Strategic Transit Plan Steering Committee Members
Patricia Beadling, PA Senator Stewart J. Greenleaf's Office (12th District) Dean Becker, Central Perkiomen Regional Planning Commission Shannan Bieler, Upper Perkiomen Regional Planning Commission Jason Bobst, Pottstown Area Rapid Transit (PART) Jenny Boyer, Upper Perkiomen Regional Planning Commission Mark Cassel, Southeastern PA Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Danielle Connelly‐Bodnar, PA Senatorb Bo Mensch's Office (24th District) Ralph Fluharty, Pottstown Regional Planning Commission Keith Freed, Indian Valley Regional Planning Commission Joe Gurinko, Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Joseph Hacker, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Julia Harper, PA Senator John C. Rafferty Jr.'s Office (44th District) Pete Hiryak, Pottstown Regional Planning Commission Bob Iannozzi, PA Representative Robert W. Godshall's Office (53rd District) Vicki Lightcap, Pennsburg Borough Council (Fmr. Mayor) Dennis Louwerse, Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA) Sharon Minninger, Indian Valley Chamber of Commerce Pat Moir, TransNet Steve Morris, PA Representative Matthew D. Bradford's Office (70th District) Owen O'Neil, Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority (LANTA) Alan Piper, Berks County Planning Commission Peggy Schmidt, Partnership TMA Luanne Stauffer, Upper Perkiomen Chamber of Commerce Lynn Wolfe, PA Representative District 147 (Currently Vacant)
Appendix B northwestern montgomery county STRATEGIC TRANSIT PLAN OPEN HOUSE Wednesday, February 24, 2010 McLean Station Rd. Come by anytime between 5PM and 8PM 29 G r a v e Marlborough Elementary School l
P
i k 1450 Gravel Pike, Green Lane, PA 18054 e OPEN HOUSE LOCATION Brief remarks about transit Washington Ln. feasibility will be repeated at
5:45pm & 6:45pm 63
What are we studying? We are studying the feasibility of expanding transit into northwestern Montgomery County and devising a long-range plan for service. Why are we doing this study? With gas prices creeping higher, northwestern Montgomery County citizens are asking their elected officials about alternatives to driving. How can you help? We need your input! Please attend the Open House anytime between 5pm and 8pm to provide feedback about the study's progress so far. STUDY SPONSORS STUDY AREA Marlborough Upper Hanover Red East Hill Salford Green Greenville Franconia Pennsburg Lane The study area encompasses 17 Upper townships and boroughs in the Salford Lower Salford northwestern portion of Montgomery County Skippack New Hanover Lower Frederick Upper Schwenksville Perkiomen Douglass Frederick
STUDY CONTACT Matthew Edmond, Senior Transportation Planner, Montgomery County Planning Commission [email protected] or 610-278-3742
Open House Plan Wednesday, February 24, 2010 (5PM – 8PM)
MATERIALS • Pretzels, Cookies, Water, Napkins, Coffee [HFA] • Open House Plan [HFA] • Sign In Sheet/Clip Board [HFA] • Overall Service Map/Glossary Handouts w/ Contact Info • 5 blank foam boards [HFA] [Baker] • Project Team Name Tags [HFA] • 3 easels [Baker] • Meeting Location Signs [HFA] • 5 posters [Baker] • 3 easels [HFA] • Poster clips [Baker] • Sticky flip chart sheets w/ Markers [HFA] • Comment Sheets [MCPC]
PROJECT TEAM ATTENDEES • Matt Edmond, MCPC • Wes Ratko, MCPC • Ryan Furgerson, Baker • Angie Dixon, HFA
DRAFT SCHEDULE
4:00 Project Team arrive o Set up space (boards, sign-in table, food table)
5:00 Open House Stations o Sign-In & Food Tables, Collect Comment Sheets [Angie] o Boards 1 – 3 [Wes] o Boards 4-5 [Matt & Ryan]
5:45 Transit Feasibility Remarks I This 10-minute informal talk will provide participants with an overview of different types and roles public transit has in a more suburban/rural area. o Introduce Team & Reason for Study [Matt] o Transit Feasibility Explanation [Ryan] o Next Steps/Reminder to fill out Comment Sheet [Matt]
5:55 Open House Stations o Sign-In & Food Tables, Collect Comment Sheets [Angie] o Boards 1 – 3 [Wes] o Boards 4-5 [Matt & Ryan]
6:45 Transit Feasibility Remarks II o Introduce Team & Reason for Study [Matt] o Transit Feasibility Explanation [Ryan] o Next Steps/Reminder to fill out Comment Sheet [Matt]
6:55 Open House Stations o Sign-In & Food Tables, Collect Comment Sheets [Angie] o Boards 1 – 3 [Wes] o Boards 4-5 [Matt & Ryan]
8:00 End of Open House/Clean Up
8:15 Project Team Leaves
GOALS
Balance Transit Concepts with Limited Financial Resources • Make recommendations that are sensitive to limited financial resources, while exploring potential new local/private funding options.
Communicate Transit Needs • Outline observed and stated mobility needs within the study area to develop transit concepts that attract new riders and accommodate residents unable to use other means of transportation.
Ensure Consistency with Local Plans, Preferences, and Long-term Vision • Complement and incorporate principles already existing in local, regional, and county planning documents.
Support Collaboration among Municipalities and Share Resources • Describe benefits of coordination across jurisdictions, agencies, and other providers to enhance and market the efficiency of transportation services.
Provide Clear Information & Tools • Establish steps to implement promising transit components and enhancements for consideration in future comprehensive and local area planning efforts.
Incorporate Environmentally Sustainable Principles • Focus on transit concepts that provide alternatives to driving, support more efficient development practices, reduce emissions, and preserve resources wherever possible.
TRANSIT PROPOSALS
1. Boyertown-Gilbertsville Circulator: Provides local trips on several days of the week to retail and community destinations.
2. Pottstown-Gilbertsville Connector: Provides a transit connection between existing transit services in Pottstown with destinations in Gilbertsville.
3. Schwenksville-Royersford Connector: Provides weekday job-access and retail trips from the central Perkiomen Valley to existing transit connections in Trappe and Royersford.
4. Pennsburg-Collegeville Connector: Provides senior-focused connection to existing Upper Perk Coaster transit service along Route 29.
5. Pennsburg-Pottstown Connector: Provides weekday transit connection between the Tri-Boro region of the study and Pottstown, including stops at Montgomery County Community College (West Campus) and the Pottstown Memorial Medical Center.
6. East Greenville-Emmaus Connector: Provides weekday job-access and regional travel connections between East Greenville and Emmaus, including a connection to LANTA's transit service between Allentown/Bethlehem and Emmaus.
7. East Greenville-North Wales Connector: Provides east-west travel across the study area, connecting both Upper Perk and Community Coaster services, as well as to SEPTA's Regional Rail R5 line.
2
DATE: Thursday, 1/25/10 @ 12:19PM INTERVIEWED BY (Initials): AED
Senior Center Name: Upper Perk Senior Center
Contact Person/Phone#: Joy Luff, 215-679-6550
Q1. Approximately how many seniors reside and/or use your services on a daily basis?
• No on-site residents
• Approximately 1,200 visitors a month
Q2. Do you provide transportation to residents or those using your services?
• No
• They use TransNet and Community Coaster
Q3. Are you familiar with some of the most requested destinations for which seniors request travel assistance (specific sites if possible)?
• The Coaster just started in July and they are happy with the stops.
• Clients are interested in having use of the Coaster on days that it currently does not servce them.
Q4. What are your thoughts on new public transit routes/services either directly serving your facility or opportunities to share resources (vans, drivers) across multiple senior centers?
• Any additional transportation service that can be offered to their clients would be beneficial.
• Seniors cannot get out of the Perk Valley without a car, and that is very difficult for most seniors.
continue on back if needed… DATE: Thursday, 1/28/10 @ 3:15PM INTERVIEWED BY (Initials): AED
Senior Center Name: Dock Woods
Contact Person/Phone#: Julie Moyer, 215-368-4438
Q1. Approximately how many seniors reside and/or use your services on a daily basis?
• Approximately 600 senior live at Dock Woods, included independent living and assisted living seniors.
• Only seniors living at Dock Woods can use their services
Q2. Do you provide transportation to residents or those using your services?
• Yes, Dock Woods has 1 coach (23 passengers) and 1 ramp van (6 passengers)
• Coach and van provide trips to area events, like theater and concerts
• 1x week trips to grocery store, 1x month trips to Mall, Walmart, etc.
• The vehicles provide an on-site shuttle service and trips as needed to their other facility, Dock Meadows for sharing activities
• Coach and van do fill up, but depends on activity
• Use van to take seniors to doctors appointments
• Community Coaster has two stops at their facility, and they use TransNet services and Homestead Taxi service
• Also use Community Home Services for transportation services (seniors pay a fee)
• Seniors sometimes pay a fee for certain trips and taxi rides
• They used to use volunteer drivers, but got away from that due to liability issues.
Q3. Are you familiar with some of the most requested destinations for which seniors request travel assistance (specific sites if possible)?
• They rarely provide service on weekends, unless it’s a special concert or event. Didn’t get a sense that weekend service is needed.
• Cannot pinpoint a day that needs more service or requests.
Q4. What are your thoughts on new public transit routes/services either directly serving your facility or opportunities to share resources (vans, drivers) across multiple senior centers?
• Connection to SEPTA is the biggest missing link to Dock Woods; it would greatly help out employees the most, and residents could benefit.
• Currently, they do not drop residents or employees off at SEPTA
continue on back if needed…
Appendix C MEMORANDUM Ryan Furgerson, AICP Transportation Planner Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 1818 Market St., Suite 3005
Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 430‐5505 (215) 568‐1349 (fax) [email protected]
To: Steering Committee Members
Date: October 23, 2009
Subject: DRAFT Transit Concepts
The primary purpose of this memorandum is to outline potential mobility concepts to provide enhanced public transportation within our study area portion of Montgomery County. These concepts are intended to spur discussion and should not be considered the all‐inclusive list of routes, options or initiatives. Please also note that some concepts explored do not necessarily focus on new vehicles or entities, but include coordination and other strategies that seek to accomplish more with resources already available in the community.
Included with this memo is a glossary of transit terms to aid in understanding these concepts. The service concepts presented here correlate to the thematic maps of demographics generated for this study. Specifically, you will notice the relationship between the population density map and growth areas as the most promising areas for transit concepts to focus on meeting community needs. The nature of these community needs will be further expanded as this study progresses, and will be shaped by the goals and objectives outlined during the second Study Steering Committee Meeting.
These concepts reflect various levels of investment and system complexity. Ultimately, the transit solution to meet the needs of the community may be a combination of the components of several of these initiatives into a network that is best tailored for the environment and funding constraints. We will continue to incorporate the opportunities and challenges that public transit concepts may face in the study area through continued dialogue with stakeholders, operators and the feedback to this study.
DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS
Subscription Loops (approximate routes): At a glance features: In an effort to avoid extended travel in the most rural sections of the study area, Daily Operation: NO subscription loops focus on existing clusters of activities and their adjacent connections to other transit services and/or destinations. Loops are envisioned Trips per Day: FEW to operate one‐way, with one or more trips in the reverse direction throughout the day. The subscription nature of these services limits ridership to lifeline Passengers: Pre‐arranged service (transit dependant), and service on any one loop route would likely operate no more than two days per week. One vehicle would be sufficient for all Vehicles: New shuttle vans subscription services, with loops scheduled to operate on alternating days.
Gilbertsville Loop: Harleysville Loop: Pennsburg Loop:
Provides connections to activities in Connects with SEPTA route 93 in Connects with Grand View Hospital Boyertown, Berks County. Allows Collegeville, serving Pottstown and Quakertown, Bucks County. for transfer and service to (PART) and Norristown Could provide limited stop service Pottstown destinations via PART destinations. Route could extend for segment of route that matches routes. further into Schwenksville / PTMA service. Skippack as needed.
Length approximately 18 miles Length approximately 23 miles Length approximately 30 miles
10/23/09 Page 2 of 7 DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS
Limited Circulators (approximate service areas): At a glance features: In areas with sufficient population density, circulator services can provide for Daily Operation: YES short local trips, providing community‐based transit. Where demand for local transit is low, circulator service may also act as feeders to existing or proposed Trips per Day: MANY future point‐to‐point transit routes. Circulators typically operate as activity center connectors, traveling in and around areas of multi‐family housing and Passengers: General Public major commercial centers. Route deviations and checkpoints would allow access to transit from all locations in the service area, rather than vehicles following a Vehicles: Existing or new fixed route.
Boyertown – Gilbertsville: Connects retail centers along PA 100, schools, and community activity centers.
Tri‐Borough (East Greenville, Pennsburg, Red Hill): Service area extending along PA 63, connecting employment centers, senior facilities, and retail activities. Lower Perkiomen (Zeiglersville, Schwenksville): Connects higher‐density residential located along this segment of PA 29 with community facilities. Harleysville: Connects retail, higher‐density residential and senior facilities.
10/23/09 Page 3 of 7 DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS
Through Services (approximate routes): At a glance features: Routes may be developed which connect larger destinations (with potentially Daily Operation: NO greater ridership potential) while traveling through the study area, enabling for access to these services. Feeder transit service would be necessary to connect Trips per Day: FEW major stops along these through routes. For routes crossing county boundaries, joint operating agreements could provide partnership opportunities to offset Passengers: General Public operating costs. These routes would likely operate infrequently, and could be scheduled in advance as part of special trips/excursions. Vehicles: Over road coach
Reading‐Quakertown: Pottstown‐Allentown: Limerick‐Souderton:
Provides connections to both Berks Provides connections between two An example of a retail focused and Bucks County destinations, cities with robust local transit service, which could operate a passing through the center (albeit networks (PART/LANTA) thereby scheduled intervals. Vehicles and the undeveloped) section of the increasing the destinations served services may need to be tailored to study area. via transfers. higher‐end experience, however there may be the potential for funding partnerships from retailers.
Length approximately 37 miles Length approximately 45 miles Length approximately 20 miles
10/23/09 Page 4 of 7 DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS
Other Strategic Transit Concepts: There are several transit concepts that are not route‐based solutions, but rather look to institutional changes to transit service delivery that would yield incremental improvements. Transit services and routes would eventually be developed around the opportunities identified, which may include enhanced capacity among existing providers, strategic policy actions and initiatives, and other location‐based strategies.
Expand existing services (frequency/coverage):
The Partnership TMA features existing routes within the study area. SEPTA and PART (Pottstown) serve adjacent areas. Strategic expansion of these routes could provide significant benefits, such as improved connections to more frequent services. Expansion could include evening and weekend services, in addition to higher frequency peak services at the time of greatest travel demand. Expansion of route coverage could include existing operators extending routes to connect at key areas or with the transit concepts previously outlined.
Service consolidation (where possible):
This method looks primarily at consolidating agency or private shuttle vans serving specific need clients (primarily seniors). Several large senior centers/developments have individual shuttle vans which may not be utilized at all times. Where such services do not presently exist, senior housing developments could opt into a coordinated schedule that allows the shared use of a van at certain times, freeing them of administrative issues associated with the acquisition and upkeep of vehicles.
Vanpools:
A commuter vanpool concept could be utilized for long‐distance (greater than 20 miles) commuters. Vanpools may be able to address job/housing imbalances either to or from the study area. The three major types of vanpool organizations are owner‐operator vans, employer‐sponsored vanpools, and third‐party vanpools.
10/23/09 Page 5 of 7 DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS
GLOSSARY OF TRANSIT TERMS
Accessible Service — Buses operating in regular service with wheelchair lifts, kneeling functions or other devices that permit disabled passengers to use the service.
Activity Center ‐ An area with high population and concentrated activities which generate a large number of trips (e.g., CBD, shopping centers, business or industrial parks, recreational facilities (also known as trip generator).
Capital Costs — Costs of long‐term assets of a public transit system such as property, buildings, vehicles, etc.
Charter Bus ‐ A bus transporting a group of persons who, pursuant to a common purpose, and under a single contract at a fixed price, have acquired the exclusive use of a bus to travel together under an itinerary.
Checkpoint — A designated location and time that a bus can arrive before – but not leave earlier than – the stated time as indicated in a schedule.
Circulator Bus Service ‐ A bus serving an area confined to a specific locale, such as a downtown area or suburban neighborhood with connections to major traffic corridors.
Deadhead — There are two types of deadhead or non‐revenue bus travel time: (1) Bus travel to or from the garage and a terminus point where revenue service begins or ends; (2) A bus’ travel between the end of service on one route to the beginning of another.
Demand Responsive ‐ Non‐fixed‐route service utilizing vans or buses with passengers boarding and alighting at pre‐arranged times at any location within the system's service area. Also called "Dial‐a‐Ride."
Fare Structure — The system set up to determine how much is to be paid by various passengers using the system at any given time.
Feeder Service — Service that picks up and delivers passengers to a regional mode at a major bus stop, transit center, terminal, Park‐and‐Ride, or other transfer facility.
Fixed Route — Transit service provided on a repetitive, fixed‐schedule basis along a specific route, with vehicles stopping to pick up passengers at and deliver passengers to specific locations.
Frequency — The amount of time scheduled between consecutive buses on a given route segment; in other words, how often the bus or train comes (also known as Headway).
Intermodal Facility — A building or site specifically designed to accommodate the meeting of two or more transit modes of travel.
Jitney ‐ Privately‐owned, small or medium‐sized vehicle usually operated on a fixed route but not on a fixed schedule.
Layover eTime ‐ Tim built into a schedule between arrival at the end of a route and the departure for the return trip, used for the recovery of delays and preparation for the return trip.
10/23/09 Page 6 of 7 DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS
Limited Service — Higher speed bus service where designated vehicles stop only at transfer points or major activity centers, usually about every 1/2 mile. Limited stop service is usually provided on major trunk lines operating during a certain part of the day or in a specified area in addition to localt service tha makes all stops.
Local Service — A type of operation that involves frequent stops and consequent low speeds, the purpose of which is to deliver and pick up transit passengers as close to their destinations or origins as possible.
Mode — A particular form of travel (e.g., bus, train, bicycle, walking or automobile.
Network — The configuration of streets or transit routes and stops that constitutes the total system.
Operating Cost — The total costs to operate and maintain a transit system including labor, fuel, maintenance, wages and salaries, employee benefits, taxes, etc.
Origin‐Destination Study — A study of the origins and destinations of trips made by vehicles or passengers.
Paratransit — Comparable transportation service required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 for individuals with disabilities who are unable to use fixed‐route transportation systems.
Peak Hour/Peak Period — The period with the highest ridership during the entire service day, generally referring to either the peak hour or peak several hours (peak period).
Ridesharing — A form of transportation, other than public transit, in which more than one person shares in the use of the vehicle, such as a van or car, to make a trip.
Ridership — The number of rides taken by people using a public transportation system in a given time period.
Route — A specified path taken by a transit vehicle usually designated by a number or a name, along which passengers are picked up or discharged.
Service Span — The span of hours over which service is operated, e.g., 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. or 24 hr (owl). Service span often varies by weekday, Saturday, or Sunday.
Subscription Bus Service ‐ A commuter bus express service operated for a guaranteed number of patrons from a given area on a prepaid, reserved‐seat basis.
Shuttle ‐ A public or private vehicle that travels back and forth over a particular route, especially a short route or one that provides connections between transportation systems, employment centers, etc.
Timed Transfer — A point or location where two or more routes come together at the same time to provide positive transfer connections. A short layover may be provided at the timed transfer point to enhance the connection.
Transit Dependent — Someone who must use public transportation for his/her travel.
Vanpool ‐ An arrangement in which a group of passengers share the use and cost of a van in traveling to and from pre‐arranged destinations together.
10/23/09 Page 7 of 7
Appendix D MEMORANDUM Ryan Furgerson, AICP Transportation Planner Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 1818 Market St., Suite 3005
Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 430‐5505 (215) 568‐1349 (fax) To: Project Stakeholders [email protected]
Date: February 17, 2010
Subject: Revision of Study Area Service Proposals
This memorandum documents the evolution of service concepts, presented at Steering Committee Meeting #2 (Tuesday, October 27, 2009). Feedback from Steering Committee participation was used to screen an initial set of 13 transit concepts into seven (7) refined transit service proposals. The following steps were used in this refinement process:
1. Identify areas where service is most practical, based upon land‐use, demographics, etc.
2. Leverage existing transit services and create new opportunities for connections.
3. Support trip purposes and service to activity centers as expressed by Steering Committee.
4. Produce rudimentary route and service plans to gauge performance against evaluation criteria.
These Service Proposals have been revised from input received following the first presentation of this memo at Steering Committee Meeting #3 (Tuesday, December 15, 2009) and from feedback provided by key staff at the Montgomery County Planning Commission, received on January 12, 2010. The combined map (Exhibit 1) and the tables at the end of this memo (Exhibit 2) detail these changes. A summary of the seven service proposals detailed in the remainder of this memo include:
1. Boyertown‐Gilbertsville Circulator: Provides local trips on several days of the week to retail and community destinations.
2. Pottstown‐Gilbertsville Connector: Provides a transit connection between existing transit services in Pottstown with destinations in Gilbertsville.
3. Schwenksville‐Royersford Connector: Provides weekday job‐access and retail trips from the central Perkiomen Valley to existing transit connections in Trappe and Royersford.
4. Pennsburg‐Collegeville Connector: Provides senior‐focused connection to existing Upper Perk Coaster transit service along Route 29. REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
5. Pennsburg‐Pottstown Connector: Provides weekday transit connection between the Tri‐Boro region of the study and Pottstown, including stops at Montgomery County Community College (West Campus) and the Pottstown Memorial Medial Center.
6. East Greenville‐Emmaus Connector: Provides weekday job‐access and regional travel connections between East Greenville and Emmaus, including a connection to LANTA's transit service between Allentown/Bethlehem and Emmaus.
7. East Greenville‐North Wales Connector: Provides east‐west travel across the study area, connecting both Upper Perk and Community Coaster services, as well as to SEPTA's Regional Rail R5 line.
Favored Trip Types – Symbols Defined:
To help distinguish the Refined Service Proposals in each of the profile sheets that follow, a variety of symbols have been used to signify certain types of trips:
Shopping based trips – service to major retail locations, such as malls or plazas. Here a variety of other destinations, such as restaurants and professional services help to increase travel demand.
Transit connection trips – service that includes multiple opportunities to connect with other routes to serve more destinations.
Senior trips – service that focuses on stops at senior care facilities, retirement communities and other locations identified as popular for seniors.
Medical trips – service specific to major hospitals and medical centers.
Jobs Access – service provided at peak commute times, reaching one or more employment sites
Exercise and recreation‐based trips – services that connect riders to local community centers, YMCA, parks and other locations that increase quality of life
2/17/10 Page 3 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #1 ‐ Boyertown‐Gilbertsville Circulator
Peer Example: Description: A fixed‐route circulator connecting numerous activity centers in Boyertown (Berks County), an area with relatively high density, and several locations in Gilbertsville (Montgomery County). The route would begin and end at the Gilbertsville Shopping Center, and is envisioned to circulate in a counter‐clockwise direction. Potential major locations served (in order of travel) include:
• Zern’s Farmer’s Market Community circulators operated in • Gilbertsville Post Office suburban Cleveland, by the Greater • Gilbertsville YMCA Cleveland Regional Tranist Authority. • Douglass Town Center Daily service was cut in September 2009, • Walmart at PA 100 but currently a one‐day a week shopper • Boyertown YMCA connection service is being contemplated. • Boyertown Senior High School A connector route into Pottstown is anticipated (Service www.riderta.com Proposal #2), either operating as an extension of this service or as a separate route. The round trip distance of this circulator is approximately 10 ½ miles.
Potential Advantages: Potential Disadvantages • Serves a high density region. • Loop routes can be indirect and incur • Previous interest and study for service to longer travel times based on direction of this location (PART). travel. • Limited residential service to Gilbertsville.
Synopsis: Favored Trip Types: Portions of this route incorporate features from a feasibility study (PART, 2002) into this area from Pottstown. The trade‐off in ridership/cost Days of Operation: resulting from either daily service with limited frequency or more extensive service on select M Tu W Th F S Su days of the week requires further study. Envisioned to provide a transit connection Hours of Operation: 10am – 8pm between Zern’s Farmers Market attendees and Frequency: the nearby, commercial attractions in Boyertown. 1 hour
Page 4 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #1 ‐ Boyertown‐Gilbertsville Circulator
Northern extent – Walmart at PA 100
Daniel B. Boyer Center (YMCA)
Future Douglass Town Center
Gilbertsville Center (YMCA)
Transit hub to be located at Gilbertsville Shopping Center – connection to Pottstown
This loop to facilitate turn around from Post Office and penetrates surrounding residential developments
Page 5 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #2 – Pottstown‐Gilbertsville Connector
Peer Example: Description: Connector route from the Pottstown Area Rapid Transit (PART) Hub at High and Hanover Street in Pottstown to the Gilbertsville Shopping Center. This route is intended to feature a timed transfer with an area circulator, or operate as a route extension of the circulator service (Service Proposal #1). The route would proceed along PA Route 100 with two intermediate stops:
• Pottstown Center • Pottstown Plaza
The intermediate stops provide additional transfer A lower frequency route from Pottstown, opportunities among PART routes serving large retail if operated by PART, enables the vehicle centers. Outside of these two stop locations, the service to be utilized for other service when not would travel express, making no further stops along Route traveling to/from Gilbertsville. 100. Within the PART service area, this route circulates www.pottstownarearapidtransit.com counter‐clockwise, providing a reverse direction of travel from current PART operations along certain travel segments. Total route length is approximately 14 miles.
Potential Advantages: Potential Disadvantages • Provides a connection to a high‐growth • Requires transfer(s) for travel between corridor, building on previous transit Pottstown and Gilbertsville destinations. expansion studies. • Generates little ridership on its own, • Allows more efficient separation of dependant on existing transit services to service (connector vs. circulator), feed riders to this route. tailoring frequency to travel demand.
Synopsis: Favored Trip Types: The connectivity provided by PART allows many destinations and trip types to be served. Providing circulation travel in the opposite Days of Operation: direction than partially overlapping PART routes, will complement rather than compete with M Tu W Th F S Su existing services. Future travel demand may dictate more frequent operations than this Hours of Operation: 9:30am – 7:30pm sketch service plan of four days per week. Frequency: 2 hours Page 6 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #2 – Pottstown‐Gilbertsville Connector INSERT Gilbertsville Shopping Center Transfer Location to Service Proposal #1 Pottstown Center
Circulation Direction
Pottstown Plaza SEE INSERT
Page 7 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #3 – Schwenksville‐Royersford Connector
Peer Example: Description: A service from the central Perkiomen Valley to a
connection with SEPTA and retail centers in Collegeville and along the Route 422 Corridor. The route would begin just north of Schwenksville, and would deviate upon request to provide direct service to several higher‐density residential developments along Route 29. The route
would then utilize Wartman Road to serve additional
residential areas and connect with Township Line Road. In rural Georgia, the Dooly‐Crisp United From Township Line Road, access would be provided to Transportation System formed to help retail establishments and SEPTA service at Ridge Pike, and residents with access to classes, day‐care, continue to a terminus at the US 422 interchange. and new job sites. A partnership with the Potential major locations served include: Rural Development Program of the USDA was instrumental in assisting this • Colonnade at Schwenksville community‐based initiative. • Limerick Crossing Shopping Center • Limerick Square Shopping Center http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rd/stories/ga‐ 20031216‐dcuts.html Overall travel on this route would comprise approximately 8 miles.
Potential Advantages: Potential Disadvantages • Provides a direct connection to two SEPTA • Scattered population density patterns routes (93 and 139) around Schwenksville would require • Weekly service allows for job access significant deviations to serve opportunities • Low off‐peak (non job access) ridership could negatively impact vehicle utilization
Synopsis: Favored Trip Types: This route provides a relatively short connection to nearby SEPTA services. There are pockets of higher density population (especially just north of Schwenksville), which could support daily Days of Operation: operation, pending further analysis of travel patterns. A combination of this service along with Service Proposal #4, both traveling within the Hours of Operation: 6:30am – 6:30pm Route 29 corridor, should be considered. Frequency: 1 hour (peak)
Page 8 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #3 – Schwenksville‐Royersford Connector
Possible extension to housing complexes in Spring Mt.
Colonnade of Schwenksville
Higher density developments along Wartman Road
Limerick Crossing Shopping Spring Valley Center – Ridge Pike, SEPTA 93 Branch (YMCA) Connection
Limerick Square Shopping Center – SEPTA 139 Connection
Page 9 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #4 –Pennsburg‐Collegeville Connector
Peer Example: Description: A connector route extending from the Upper Perkiomen
area, south along the Route 29 corridor, and connecting with SEPTA Route 93 along Ridge Pike in Collegeville. This route would also connect with the existing PTMA Upper Perk Coaster, allowing riders to transfer to/from various destinations within the Tri‐Boro communities. Due to the
route length and low density developments through which
A volunteer based (low cost) and more it travels, only a limited number of intermediate stops focused service could compliment and would be anticipated, focused around the town centers of integrate with existing shared‐ride Green Lane and Schwenksville. Additionally, other potential services for seniors and disabled clients. destinations could include: This service can enable low‐income residents to reach other transit • Perkiomen Valley High School (Collegeville) connection to work locations and directly • Redner’s Market (Collegeville) serve shopping opportunities. • Providence Town Center (US 422) www.ruraltransitservice.org Total route length is approximately 18.5 miles.
Potential Advantages: Potential Disadvantages • Connects with existing PTMA Upper Perk • Large portions of route traverse rural areas, Coaster service, linking to SEPTA transit with limited ability to generate additional connections ridership • May allow for the consolidation of some • More likely to resemble an extension of trips, freeing shared‐ride resources for existing shared‐ride services rather than other areas of the county open up new travel options
Synopsis: Favored Trip Types: The initial sketch service plan calls for operations during the same time as the Upper Perk Coaster (W, Th, F), allowing for a separation of connector Days of Operation: and circulator services, similar to the operating methodology of Service Proposal #1 and #2. A combination of this service and Service Proposal #3, both traveling within the Route 29 corridor, should be considered. Hours of Operation: 9am – 4pm Frequency: 2 hours
Page 10 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #4 –Pennsburg‐Collegeville Connector
Pennsburg Shopping Center – Transfer Location to Upper Perk Coaster (PTMA)
Perkiomen Valley High School
SEPTA 93 Transfer at Ridge Pike
Page 0 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #5 – Pennsburg‐Pottstown Connector
Peer Example: Description: A connection route between the PTMA Upper Perk Coaster
at Pennsburg Shopping Center and the Pottstown Memorial Medical Center. The route proceeds primarily on the Route 633 corridor from Pennsburg. An intermediate stop and deviation would be provided at the Frederick Mennonite Center on Route 73. Connections with PART and travel into
Pottstown to the Montgomery County Community College
would be provided. From Pottstown, the Medical Center would be reached by travel on US 422. Connections with SEPTA would be possible at the Pottstown and Medical Rural Transit, serving the Bloomington, IN Center locations. The other intermediate locations served region, provides longer distance, senior‐ include: focused transportation. A variety of service types, such as rural and express, • North End Shopping Center (PART Routes) include connections to major medical • Hollenbach Center (YMCA) destinations and shuttle service to a community college. Total route length is approximately 35 miles round trip. www.area10.bloomington.in.us
Potential Advantages: Potential Disadvantages • Various transfer points with PART provide • Daily service, required to make college and access to other destinations in Pottstown. hospital service practical, is very costly • Long distance connector can operate less along such a low density route frequently than the Upper Perk Coaster • Generates little ridership on its own, dependant on existing transit services to feed riders to this route
Synopsis: Favored Trip Types: This route represents the closest connection to
Pottstown that can be made from this portion of the study area. The demand for the trips Days of Operation: envisioned (college and medical) is untested, the route does provide other connections to accommodate other trip types. Hours of Operation: 7am – 5pm Frequency: 2 hours
Page 12 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #5 – Pennsburg ‐Pottstown Connector
Pennsburg Shopping Center – Transfer Location
Fredrick Mennonite Center
Hendricks Family Center North End Shopping (YMCA) Center PART Connection
Pottstown Memorial Medical Center
Montgomery County Community College (West Campus)
Page 13 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #6 – East Greenville‐Emmaus Connector
Peer Example: Description: A connection route between East‐Greenville that travels on Route 100 to Emmaus, and a connection to the Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority (LANTA) bus system, providing service to Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton. The route features a timed transfer with the PTMA Upper Perk Coaster at a hub located at the Walmart Shopping Center on Route 29. The service would make one intermediate stop at the Hereford Estates manufactured Saint Mary’s County Transit System (STS) home park, at the intersection of Route 29 and Route 100. in Maryland offers transfer service to In Emmaus, the route would meet LANTA Route D other county providers, honoring other (Northampton‐Emmaus) at the Chestnut Street and South system passes and sharing revenue by Cedar Crest Boulevard stop. LANTA provides service to agreement. Emmaus every 30 minutes in the peak and hourly off‐peak. www.co.saint‐marys.md.us/dpw Total route length is approximately 20 1/2 miles round trip.
Potential Advantages: Potential Disadvantages • Frequent service in Emmaus facilitates • Requires multiple transfers for destinations transfers in the Allentown area • Separate route from PTMA Upper Perk • Generates little ridership on its own, Coaster allows vehicle to be sized dependant on existing transit services to different, assuming less demand to/from feed riders to this route Emmaus than for trips within the Tri‐Boro region
Synopsis: Favored Trip Types: This route represents the closest connection that can be made from this portion of the study area to another fixed‐route transit system (LANTA). Days of Operation: An alternative approach to reduce transfers would be to add an additional vehicle to the PTMA Upper Perk Coaster and extend the route to connect directly with LANTA at Emmaus. Earlier service intended to support work trips, Hours of Operation: 7am – 6pm taking advantage of LANTA’s peak service to Emmaus (1st run arrives at 6:30am). Frequency: 1 hour
Page 14 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #6 – East Greenville‐Emmaus Connector
LANTA Connection
Hereford Estates
PTMA Upper Perk Coaster Connection (Walmart)
Page 15 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #7 – East Greenville‐North Wales Connector
Peer Example: Description: This route links two existing PTMA services (Community
Coaster and Upper Perk Coaster) and provides a connection at the SEPTA North Wales Regional Rail Station. The route would operate with limited stops, especially in areas already served by PTMA, and be used primarily for travel across the study area, rather than for circulation. In
addition to serving the currently unserved communities of
The Edison Light Transit Commuter Green Lane and Kulpsville, other potential destinations Shuttle, in New Jersey provides local include: circulation to/from the Edison Train Station to predetermined locations. • Shelley Square • Towamencin Corporate Center http://www.edisonnj.org/ • North Penn High School • Merck & Co. Upper Gwynedd Office Complex
Overall, the total route length from East Greenville to North Wales is approximately 41 miles round trip. Potential Advantages: Potential Disadvantages • Provides a linkage across multiple • Route overlaps existing PTMA service services area(s) • Shorter segment in the peak period could • May be difficult to obtain buy‐in from local provide connection to SEPTA’s R5 North employment sites to achieve consolidation Wales Rail Station of existing North Wales Rail Station shuttles
Synopsis: Favored Trip Types:
The route should be considered for operation each weekday, with the route length varying based on the day of the week. For example, the Days of Operation: segment from Kulpsville to North Wales could operate each day. The full route could be operated on a limited basis (off peak only) on specific weekdays only in order to reduce operating costs on low ridership route segments. Hours of Operation: 7am – 6pm Frequency: 30 min. peak 2 hours off peak
Page 16 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
SERVICE PROPOSAL #7 – East Greenville‐North Wales Connector
PTMA Upper Perk Coaster Connection (Walmart)
PTMA Community Coaster Connection (Walmart)
Shorter North Wales station access route could operate from the Towamencin Corporate Center
Merck Office Complex SEPTA connections here and at North Wales
Page 17 of 21
REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
Exhibit 2 – Evolutions of Transit Concepts: Subscription Loops
Initial Transit Concept Description Evolution Result
A) Gilbertsville Loop Provides connections to activities Reviewed previous Pottstown Service Proposal #2 in Boyertown, Berks County. Rapid Transit Study to this region. Allows for transfer and service to Express (faster operations) on Pottstown destinations via PART Route 100 favored over loop routes. service on Route 663. Connector service and circulation added in Pottstown.
B) Pennsburg Loop Connects with Grand View Hospital Steering Committee feedback Service to Quakertown dropped. and Quakertown, Bucks County. indicated that hospital travel from Pennsburg Hospital connection Could provide limited stop service the region is predominately to provided in Service Proposal #5. for segment of route that matches Montgomery County locations. Other hospitals, such as Abington PTMA service. Length of loop and low Health (Lansdale) and Mercy productivity service to Quakertown Suburban Hospital (Norristown) connections noted. can be reached via other connections.
C) Harleysville Loop Connects with SEPTA Route 93 in Absence of many activity centers in Express connecting service to East Collegeville, serving Pottstown Schwenksville and Skippack Greenville and the North Wales (PART) and Norristown deemed this route inefficient. Best SEPTA Regional Rail Station destinations. Route could extend to preserve current transit travel provided in Service Proposal #7. further into Schwenksville / demand from Harleysville towards Transfers to the PTMA Community Skippack as needed. Lansdale, Souderton as evidenced Coaster with serve local by the PTMA Community Coaster. Harleysville destinations.
2/17/10 Page 18 of 21 REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
Exhibit 2 (continued) – Evolutions of Transit Concepts: Limited Circulators
Initial Transit Concept Description Evolution Result
D) Boyertown – Gilbertsville Connects retail centers along Local circulator developed with Service Proposal #1 Route 100, schools, and primary focus on retail, shopping community activity centers. trips. Schedule developed to include Saturday service in support of Zern’s Farmer’s Market.
E) Tri‐Borough (East Greenville, Service area extending along Route Land‐use is primarily linear along Service Proposal #4 Pennsburg, Red Hill) 63, connecting employment Route 29, and is adequately centers, senior facilities, and retail covered by existing PTMA Upper‐ Service Proposal #5 activities. Perk Coaster service. Additional Service Proposal #6 connections added to enhance this existing service.. Service Proposal #7
F) Lower Perkiomen Connects higher‐density residential Land‐use is primarily linear in this No high frequency circulator (Zeiglersville, Schwenksville) located along this segment of region, and circulator demand for service in this region is proposed at Route 29 with community facilities. frequent local connections is this time. Short connections to deemed low. Connections along SEPTA, featuring daily service for Route 29 can be handled by jobs‐access presented in Service eventual expansion of through Proposal #3. Additional connector service to the Tri‐Boro connectivity envisioned to region. Collegeville via Service Proposal #4.
G) Harleysville Connects retail, higher‐density A retail‐oriented, higher frequency Additional and separate routes residential and senior facilities. circulator was proposed as a deemed to be confusing. Support modification of existing PTMA increasing frequency of existing services in the area. PTMA Community Coaster.
2/17/10 Page 19 of 21 REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
Exhibit 2 (continued) – Evolutions of Transit Concepts: Through Services
Initial Transit Concept Description Evolution Result
H) Reading‐Quakertown Provides connections to both Berks Overall, through service is deemed Reading and Quakertown service and Bucks County destinations, costly, and is best limited to dropped. Portions of Route 663 passing through the center (albeit nearest connections to outside corridor served by Service Proposal the undeveloped) section of the transit providers and between #7. study area. destinations within the study area.
I) Pottstown‐Allentown Provides connections between two Due to cost and route length Service Proposal #6 cities with robust local transit considerations, the closets networks (PART/LANTA) thereby connection to LANTA (and increasing the destinations served ultimately Allentown) was favored. via transfers.
J) Limerick‐Souderton An example of a retail focused Retail focus to destination Direct service to the Premium service, which could operate at shopping is a theme of each Outlets dropped, in favor of scheduled intervals. Vehicles and proposed circulator. Service for increasing SEPTA connections to services may need to be tailored to the Philadelphia Premium Outlets service already serving that higher‐end experience, however there may be the potential for was considered on a once‐a‐week location. Service Proposal #3 and funding partnerships from basis. Service Proposal #4 provide such retailers. access.
2/17/10 Page 20 of 21 REFINED SERVICE PROPOSALS
Exhibit 2 (continued) – Evolutions of Transit Concepts: Other Strategic Concepts
Initial Transit Concept Description Evolution Result
K) Expand existing services Expansion could include evening Where possible, the refined service Features of expanded coverage (frequency/coverage) and weekend services, in addition proposals incorporated existing were included in the following: to higher frequency peak services service, certain routes can serve as at the time of greatest travel extensions of service coverage, Service Proposal #2 demand. Expansion of route and the connections provided Service Proposal #6 coverage could include existing could increase ridership and operators extending routes to demand for more frequent (daily) Service Proposal #7 connect at key areas or with the operations.
transit concepts previously outlined.
L) Service consolidation (where This method looks primarily at Senior services was tested among The service proposals most possible) consolidating agency or private large complexes. These routes favorable to service consolidation shuttle vans serving specific need would also be available to the include: clients (primarily seniors). Several traveling public, helping to offset large senior centers/developments costs. Service Proposal #4 have individual shuttle vans which Service Proposal #7 may not be utilized at all times.
M) Vanpools A commuter vanpool concept The study identified major Due to dispersion of workers, and could be utilized for long‐distance employers and investigated either differing shift times, it will (greater than 20 miles) direct employee service or shuttle continue to be difficult to support commuters. Vanpools may be able service from adjacent transit work‐based trips, however Service to address job/housing imbalances connections. Proposals #3, #6 and #7 favor job either to or from the study area. access.
2/17/10 Page 21 of 21
Appendix E MEMORANDUM Ryan Furgerson, AICP Transportation Planner Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 1818 Market St., Suite 3005
Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 430‐5505 (215) 568‐1349 (fax) To: Steering Committee [email protected]
Date: April 16, 2010
Subject: Evaluation Matrix and Methodology
This memorandum documents the evaluation steps used to identify service proposals for further feasibility analysis by the planning team. This memo highlights the key evaluation methodology we used to identify and prioritize the most favorable routes in relation to metrics developed earlier in this study. The key components of this memo include:
1) Matrix of Evaluation Results
2) Metrics Details and Scoring Rationale
3) Costing Methodology
1. MATRIX OF EVALUATION RESULTS
An important first step in the evaluation process of the seven transit service proposals, even before financial implications of feasibility are considered, is to screen and reduce all the potential routes developed in this study into a preferred set of services. This is accomplished through an evaluation methodology that ranks the transit service proposals in such a way that decision‐makers can understand the implications of each proposal and consider the comparative trade‐offs involved in recommending one proposal over another. This methodology provides a prioritization of the service proposals and allows the study to focus additional analysis on the most promising routes. Even service proposals not identified as high priority, however, are not necessarily precluded from future implementation as these routes still inform the long‐term strategic planning vision for the region.
A matrix was developed to prioritize and reflect a comparative ranking (through cumulative scores) for each service proposal. The matrix of metric scores for each of the seven service proposals is presented in Exhibit 1, with the priority ranking listed in Exhibit 2. The remainder of this memo provides additional narrative on these results and how they were calculated by the study team.
4/16/10 Page 1 of 11
Exhibit 1. Matrix of Results: Service Proposal Scores
4/16/10 Page 2 of 11
Concept Rank #6 East Greenville ‐ Emmaus 1 #5 Pennsburg ‐ Pottstown 1 #2 Pottstown‐Gilbertsville Connector 3 #7 East Greenville ‐ North Wales 4 #1 Boyertown‐Gilbertsville Circulator 5 #4 Pennsburg ‐ Collegeville 6 #3 Schwenksville ‐ Royersford 7 Exhibit 2. Ranking of Service Proposals based on Evaluation Matrix Scores
Please note, that the total proposal score reflects a prioritization exercise that was developed during Steering Committee Meeting #2. This exercise established a weight for those metrics deemed more important. The metrics were categorized as either Tier A (Most Important), Tier B (Very Important), Tier C (Somewhat Important). The metric scores were then weighted as follows:
Tier A –Individual scores multiplied three times in calculation of the total score. Limit Cost Utilize Existing Resources
Tier B – Individual scores multiplied two times in calculation of the total score. Meets Needs Expands Coverage
Tier C – Individual scores summed without multiplication in calculation of the total score. Accessibility Promote Usage Increase Convenience Attract Choice Ridership
Overall, the following observations can be made from this process. First, the scoring reflects the relative satisfaction of the service proposals for achieving the metrics defined for this study. The maximum score possible is 60. While the total scores recorded for all service proposals are significantly less than the maximum total, this reveals the overall difficulties encountered by any fixed‐route transit service, rather than a deficiency in the design of the service proposals tested. All service proposals were favorable for expanding transit coverage into the study area, but the rural and low‐density development throughout much of the region impacted the scores for accessibility. The details and scoring rationale for all metrics is presented in the reminder of this section of the memo.
4/16/10 Page 3 of 11 DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS
2. METRICS DETAIL AND SCORING RATIONALE
For each metric, a numeric scale was developed to capture the range of favorable performance. A number from 0‐4 represented this scale, which were guided by the scoring rationale and qualitative assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each service proposal.
The eight metric categories and a description of the rationale for assigning a score are as follows:
Limit Cost – This metric captures the range of annual operating costs as developed for each service proposal. Order of magnitude costs were developed for each service proposal, following the methodology contained in this memo. The assignment of scores was based upon the degree each individual service proposal varied from a median value for all service proposals, and the allowance of a condition that could subtract from this score is noted in the table below:
Limit Cost Metric – Scoring Rationale 0 More than 20% higher than the average cost of all proposals 1 Between 10% and 20% higher than the average cost of all proposals 2 Within 10% either above or below the average cost of all proposals 3 Between 10% and 20% lower than the average cost of all proposals 4 More than 20% less than the average cost of all proposals ‐1 Subtract from score any proposal for which vehicle would remain underutilized, either due to less than 5 day per week operation or greater than 20 minutes downtime between runs.
For each service proposal, both a high and low estimate of costs were used to produce a range of costs to be anticipated. The high costs reflect the service outlined in the previously presented service proposal descriptions, while the low cost reflects more limited service, typically through less frequency and larger headways. The low cost can also better reflect a phased implementation of service, with increased frequency and higher costs only being introduced based on observed ridership and public response to the service. The summary table in Exhibit 3 presents cost ranges for each of the various service proposals that were generated using this cost estimation process.
Exhibit 3. Service Proposals – Annual Cost Estimation (2010 Dollars)
Concept Low Cost High Cost #1 Boyertown‐Gilbertsville Circulator $100,000 $120,000 #2 Pottstown‐Gilbertsville Connector $40,000 $80,000 #3 Schwenksville ‐ Royersford $130,000 $210,000 #4 Pennsburg ‐ Collegeville $70,000 $110,000 #5 Pennsburg ‐ Pottstown $130,000 $200,000 #6 East Greenville ‐ Emmaus $100,000 $170,000 #7 East Greenville ‐ North Wales $160,000 $270,000
4/16/10 Page 4 of 11 DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS
Utilize Existing Resources ‐ The ability to expand or compliment existing routes, and to provide connectivity with existing transit service providers is considered in this metric. The scoring for this metric involves a composite score that, starting from zero, either adds or subtracts based upon the following attributes:
Utilize Existing Resources Metric– Scoring Rationale +1 Service proposal could function as a route expansion of an existing route +1 Service proposal could provide for some shared‐ride/job access trips +1 Service proposal maximizes vehicle utilization (cycle time vs. headway) +1 Service proposal has the potential to free existing providers (senior shuttles, vanpools, etc.) from providing service along its route ‐1 Service proposal duplicates existing transit route(s) ‐1 Service proposal requires multiple vehicles to operate along the route ‐1 Service proposal dependent upon other new/modified services to implement
For most routes, the headways can be modified slightly to assure vehicles are well utilized. During outreach to the community, however, it was found that there is limited ability to use existing vehicles or consolidate shuttle vans across the multiple senior centers and other trip providers. We believe the potential remains to accommodate some shared‐ride trips within the study area via a fixed‐route, however this ultimately may not be cost effective. Furthermore, since the planning team envisioned many service proposals operating each weekday, this does not allow for new vehicles purchased to be leveraged across different routes that operate only on certain days of the week.
Meets Needs ‐ This metric is focused on increasing mobility choice for captive riders, representing population groups in the study area with limited means to travel without the use of public transportation. Through the public involvement process, stated community needs such as access to retail and medical facilities have been incorporated into route designs where possible. The scoring attributes for this metric include: Meets Needs Metric – Scoring Rationale +1 Service proposal serves location/facility requested through Steering Committee/public involvement +1 Service proposal connects to employment destinations +1 Service proposal connects to retail destinations +1 Service proposal connects to medical destinations ‐1 Service proposal route coverage could be better served by non‐fixed route operations (subscription, shared‐ride, etc.) ‐1 Service proposal operates on a limited basis in two of the following three categories: geographic coverage, days of week, time of day ‐1 Service proposal operates where community needs regarding transit still uncertain
4/16/10 Page 5 of 11 DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS
Expand Coverage – This metric reflects the degree to which service concepts provide new transit connections in previously unserved or underserved locations throughout the study area. It is important to note that the expansion of service in not simply a reflection of the distance a service proposal travels, as some proposals will feature limited stops as they travel through low‐density development. The scoring attributes for this metric include:
Expand Coverage Metric– Scoring Rationale +1 Service proposal provides transit connections at each terminal +1 Service proposal serves at least one major employment, retail, or medical site +1 Service proposal connects/extends service of a PTMA Coaster route +1 Service proposal serves three (3) or more communities and/or travels outside Montgomery County ‐1 Service proposal travels to a destination that can be reached by other transit means ‐1 Service proposal does not serve a high growth (population/economic) corridor
All service proposals have been designed to connect multiple communities and/or serve nearby and attractive transit destinations outside the County. However, not all service proposals operate in the anticipated high growth corridors, therefore limiting the longer‐term ridership growth potential.
Accessibility – The primary definition of this metric is to measure the proximity a service proposal will travel to major concentrations of population and activity centers. The greater the number of destinations served, such as with circulators, the higher the score. Point‐to‐point services will tend to be more limited in neighborhood access. An additional component of access is the ability for seniors or those with disabilities to have specialized service to meet them as close to curbside as possible. The scoring attributes for this metric include:
Accessibility Metric– Scoring Rationale +1 Service proposal features numerous stops within a single community +1 Service proposal serves concentrations of senior/low‐income population groups +1 Service proposal can support deviated fixed‐route operations +1 Service proposal connects to areas favorable for walking, bicycling and other modes of access to/from stops ‐1 Service proposal travels for extended distances without stopping (due to highway configuration and/or low‐density development) ‐1 Service proposal may feature a headway greater than one hour ‐1 Service proposal stops may be adjacent to high volume traffic; difficult for passengers to access either side of roadway from the stop locations
4/16/10 Page 6 of 11 DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS
With the exception of connector services, all other service proposals feature multiple stops within communities they serve, allowing residents to make local trips and allowing for easier access to the route. For long distance routes, however, the number of potential transit stops remains low due to extensive travel through low‐density development, which would challenge access to the system, especially for isolated, rural populations.
Promotes Usage – This metric represents the degree to which the service proposal would significantly alter and shape the travel habits of residents. While this is perhaps the most subjective of the various qualitative measures, higher score rankings are intended to be attributed to concepts which improve mobility choice and quality of life for the greatest number of people. Drawbacks can include cases where connections made by service proposals at transfer locations are anticipated to operate less frequently than the other transit system, thereby not allowing for the maximum amount of transfers to be made. The scoring attributes for this metric include:
Promotes Usage Metric– Scoring Rationale +1 Service proposal operates during peak travel times +1 Service proposal accommodates a variety of trip types +1 Service proposal can support other community/economic development initiatives +1 Service proposal has potential to accommodate travel demand in both directions (both to/from the study area) ‐1 Service proposal has less frequent service than any connecting transit route(s) ‐1 Service proposal requires two or more transfers to reach major destinations ‐1 Service proposal route features end‐to‐end travel time greater than one hour
Increase Convenience – This metric reflects specific features of the service proposals’ route design which influence the ease of use (transfers) and accommodating (span of service). Factors contributing to a higher score would include service available during a large portion of the day, a higher frequency of service to enable a rider to travel according to their schedule, and as short a travel time as possible to their intended destination. The scoring attributes for this metric include:
Increase Convenience Metric– Scoring Rationale +1 Service proposal has a direct (end‐to‐end) route +1 Service proposal operates a minimum of five (5) days per week +1 Service proposal has a headway of 60 minutes or less +1 Transfers are possible to three (3) or more transit routes ‐1 Service proposal operates less than five (5) days per week ‐1 Service proposal operates has span of service less than 10 hours per day ‐1 Service proposal has a headway greater than 60 minutes
4/16/10 Page 7 of 11 DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS
With the exception of the Gilbertsville Circulator, the service proposals have been designed with direct routes and the four routes are envisioned to provide service each day during the week, which maximizes travel choice. Limiting convenience, however, is the fact that for some service proposals, due to overall travel distance and the anticipated ridership demand, frequency of service is greater than one hour.
Attract Choice Ridership – This metric is defined as the ability for a service concept to both attract and transport large numbers of riders. While no specific ridership figures can be forecast at this preliminary stage, certain proposals have broader appeal (higher score) than others based on the proposed design of service. In order to produce a scoring rationale, the population along each service proposal route within ¼ of the service was estimated. This was then factored along with the composite score for the Accessibility, Promote Usage, and Increase Convenience metrics. Thus, routes that generally travel through higher populations and have also ranked favorably in other areas will score highest. The assignment of scores was based upon the degree each individual service proposal varied from this median value, along with any further conditions that should add or subtract from this score as noted in the table below:
Attract Choice Ridership Metric– Scoring Rationale 0 Less than 20% of the average population within ¼ mile of all proposals 1 Between 10% and 20% lower than the average population within ¼ mile of all proposals 2 Within 10% either above or below the average population within ¼ mile of all proposals 3 Between 10% and 20% higher than the average population within ¼ mile of all proposals 4 More than 20% higher than the average population within ¼ mile of all proposals +1 Add to total score any service proposal with a connection to a high frequency (30 min. or less) transit system ‐1 Subtract from total score any service proposal with a composite score less than 1 for the total of the Accessibility, Promote Usage, and Increase Convenience metrics
The scoring that resulted from each of the metrics is intended to reflect a general magnitude of the ability of the service proposal to satisfy the conditions of each metric category. The scoring reveals a general consensus of the planning team, based upon the participation of stakeholders and transit knowledge on the areas where each service proposal performs well or has shortcomings.
4/16/10 Page 8 of 11 DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS
3. COSTING METHODOLOGY
Order of magnitude cost estimations were prepared for the various service proposals. At the feasibility stages of development, this included the need to develop rudimentary service plans and use of operating cost assumptions based on potential operators of the service. Operating cost structure can vary based upon the management and organizational structure of the service provider, therefore a baseline estimate was used. As the recommended services are refined prior to implementation, many assumptions can be replaced by a more precise service plan and operating agreement, which will provide detailed operating expenses. At the feasibility stage of analysis, the process for generating these cost estimates followed these steps:
1. Determine total service hours – To determine the hours a vehicle is in operation, assumptions were developed about the number of hours of service transit would need to be available throughout the day. While general service start and end times ewer identified in the service proposal definition, it is less important to know at what times service would start or end, and rather more useful to consider the total hours (service span) and number of days per week of operation. For some service proposals, peak hour service has been calculated, reflecting more frequent service provided for a portion of the day (or smaller segment of the route) to support commuting trips. 2. Determine cycle times – This is done concurrent with step 1, and there are two key approaches. The first is to assume that the frequency of transit service will be dictated by how fast the vehicle can travel and return to the beginning point of its run. Running speeds were estimated from statistics provide by PART, and account for the number of stops, traffic interference, and posted highway speeds. The second approach states that as a policy, it is important for vehicles to come at pre‐ defined headway (30 minutes for example) and therefore if a route is long or if travel conditions don’t allow for a vehicle to return to the start of the run within the stated headway, then multiple vehicles will be needed. The number of vehicles in service will also influence the total service hours, since this is based per transit vehicle operator. For this analysis, all non‐peak services were modified (longer headways or shorter route length) to require only one vehicle for operations. 3. Apply capital and operating cost assumptions – With total hours and the number of vehicles needed (from step 2), it is important to apply appropriate estimates for these costs. Operating Expense per Service Hour is typically reported by larger transit agencies and incorporates all costs (administration, fuel, insurance, etc.) on a per hour basis. Cost estimates from SEPTA, PART, and Transnet were obtained, and it is recognized that these expenses typically vary based on the type of service and operating agreement. Capital costs are obtained using various vehicle costs to also reflect the type of service being provided. For this assumption, all service proposals at this feasibility stage are limited to cut ‐away vans (capacity 15‐24 passengers). 4. Annualize Costs – In order to factor vehicle replacement cycles (five years for transit vans), a rough estimate for the total annual costs anticipated was generated.
This cost analysis excludes any revenue forecasting/fare policy to offset these costs. As a general observation of suburban/rural transit operations, this revenue seldom exceeds 10 percent of overall expenses. Therefore, 4/16/10 Page 9 of 11 DRAFT TRANSIT CONCEPTS ridership revenue is not anticipated to provide a major source of funding for the service, and its ability to offset costs is considered negligible and not included at this stage of feasibility analysis. A comprehensive table containing the service plan and cost details behind the cost estimates is contained in Exhibit 4.
The costs derived for this plan reflect operating costs for additional service hours and vehicle procurement costs (both for new services and regularly needed fleet replacement). The operating cost methodology assumed a baseline cost of approximately $75.00 per hour for fixed route services. This figure was derived from analysis of SEPTA, PART and Transnet providers, as well as a comparative review of small fixed‐route systems as reported in the National Transit Database (NTD), in recognition that each agency has a different cost structure. This baseline cost reflects (is “reflects” the right word?) would be a target for any future operating agreement, as the feasibility assessment ultimately hinges on competitive and efficient operating costs for this service to be practical. Capital cost methodology primarily accounted for ordinary vehicle replacement. Additional costs anticipated would include procurement of shelters, signage, and facilities. Typically, these costs can be offset by local sponsorship.
4/16/10 Page 10 of 11
Exhibit 4. Transit Cost Worksheet
4/16/10 Page 11 of 11
Appendix F Local Match Costs Estimates by Residents Within 1/2 Mile Buffer
Pottstown‐Pennsburg via Gilbertsville LOW Local Contribution Scenario HIGH Local Contribution Scenario Borough/ Per Capita Township Borough/ Township # Residents within General Fund Contribution % of Budget Contribution % of Budget Budget Proposed Route in a 1/2 Mile of General Found Budget ($85.8K total local ($85.8K Total ($132K total local ($132K Total Jurisdiction Borough/ Township Found Area # Residents Routes Budget (Expenditures) Budget Year Expenditure contribution)* Local Contr.) contribution)* Local Contr.) Pottstown Borough Y #2/#5 21,859 14,807$ 11,087,903 2010$ 507.25 $ 46,773 0.42%$ 71,958 0.65% W Pottsgrove Township N #2 3,815 721$ 3,018,123 2010$ 791.12 $ 2,278 0.08%$ 3,504 0.12% Lower Pottsgrove Township Y #2/#5 12,710 695$ 5,390,850 2009$ 424.14 $ 2,195 0.04%$ 3,378 0.06% Upper Pottsgrove Township Y #2/#5 4390 1998$ 2,295,328 2009$ 522.85 $ 6,311 0.27%$ 9,710 0.42% Pennsburg Borough Y #5/#4/#7 3000 2348$ 1,484,185 2010$ 494.73 $ 7,417 0.50%$ 11,411 0.77% New Hanover Township Y #2/#5 7369 1315$ 3,017,520 2010$ 409.49 $ 4,154 0.14%$ 6,391 0.21% Douglass Township Y #5 9104 5278$ 2,948,323 2009$ 323.85 $ 16,672 0.57%$ 25,650 0.87% Totals 62,247 27,162$ 29,242,231.93 $ 85,800 $ 132,000 LOW Local Contribution Goal (66%)$ 85,800 (Total Low Cost ‐$130,000) (cost/resident)*$ 3.16 HIGH Local Contribution Goal (66%)$ 132,000 (Total High Cost ‐ $200,000) (cost/resident)*$ 4.86
East Greenville‐Emmaus LOW Local Contribution Scenario HIGH Local Contribution Scenario Borough/ Per Capita Township Borough/ Township # Residents within General Found General Fund Contribution ($30K % of Budget Contribution ($50K % of Budget Budget Proposed Route in a 1/2 Mile of Budget Budget total local ($30K Total total local ($50K Total Local Jurisdiction Borough/ Township Found Area # Residents Routes (Expenditures) Budget Year Expenditure contribution)* Local Contr.) contribution)* Contr.) East Greenville Borough Y #6 5548 1468$ 1,370,962 2010$ 247.11 $ 12,057 0.88%$ 20,496 1.50% Upper Hanover Township Y #6 6000 1031$ 2,767,796 2010$ 461.30 $ 8,468 0.31%$ 14,395 0.52% Emmaus Borough Y #6 12,000 2038$ 8,206,169 2010$ 683.85 $ 16,738 0.20%$ 28,455 0.35% Hereford Township N #6 3,170 967$ 464.09 $ 7,942 n/a$ 13,501 n/a Upper Milford Township N #6 6,889 2532$ 464.09 $ 20,795 n/a$ 35,352 n/a Totals 11,548 8,036$ 4,138,758.00 (avg)$ 464.09 $ 66,000 $ 112,200 LOW Local Contribution Goal (66%)$ 66,000 (Total Low Cost ‐ $100,000) (cost/resident)*$ 8.21 HIGH Local Contribution Goal (66%)$ 112,200 (Total High Cost ‐ $170,000) (cost/resident)*$ 13.96
Assumptions: 1. Only townships/boroughs impacted by the routes "recommended for further feasiblity analysis" are included in our analysis 2. Allocations are weighted by population distribution in each of the impacted boroughs/townships, based on being the most equitable/politically feasible approach 3. Estimates are all based on General Fund Total Expenditures 4. We have provided both LOW and HIGH Total match scenarios, based on the ranges of $40‐60K we discussed for total local contribution
*Cost/resident for total residents within 1/2 mile buffer (all municipalities) Local Match Costs Estimates by Route Distance Within Municipality
Pottstown‐Pennsburg via Gilbertsville LOW Local Contribution Scenario HIGH Local Contribution Scenario Borough/ Per Capita Township Borough/ Township # Residents within General Fund Contribution % of Budget Contribution % of Budget Budget Proposed Route in Length of Route a 1/2 Mile of General Found Budget ($85.8K total local ($85.8K Total ($132K total local ($132K Total Jurisdiction Borough/ Township Found Area w/in Municipality # Residents Routes Budget (Expenditures) Budget Year Expenditure contribution)* Local Contr.) contribution)* Local Contr.) Pottstown Borough Y #2/#5 4.32 21,859 14,807$ 11,087,903 2010$ 507.25 $ 20,603 0.19%$ 31,698 0.29% W Pottsgrove Township N #2 0 3,815 721$ 3,018,123 2010$ 791.12 $ ‐ 0.00% $ ‐ 0.00% Lower Pottsgrove Township Y #2/#5 0.98 12,710 695$ 5,390,850 2009$ 424.14 $ 4,674 0.09%$ 7,191 0.13% Upper Pottsgrove Township Y #2/#5 2.88 4390 1998$ 2,295,328 2009$ 522.85 $ 13,736 0.60%$ 21,132 0.92% Pennsburg Borough Y #5/#4/#7 0.19 3000 2348$ 1,484,185 2010$ 494.73 $ 906 0.06%$ 1,394 0.09% New Hanover Township Y #2/#5 5.49 7369 1315$ 3,017,520 2010$ 409.49 $ 26,184 0.87%$ 40,282 1.33% Douglass Township Y #5 4.13 9104 5278$ 2,948,323 2009$ 323.85 $ 19,697 0.67%$ 30,304 1.03% Totals 17.99 62,247 27,162$ 29,242,231.93 $ 85,800 $ 132,000 LOW Local Contribution Goal (66%)$ 85,800 (Total Low Cost ‐$130,000) (cost/mile)*$ 4,769.32 HIGH Local Contribution Goal (66%)$ 132,000 (Total High Cost ‐ $200,000) (cost/mile)*$ 7,337.41
East Greenville‐Emmaus LOW Local Contribution Scenario HIGH Local Contribution Scenario Borough/ Per Capita Township Borough/ Township Length of Route in # Residents within General Found General Fund Contribution ($66K % of Budget Contribution % of Budget Budget Proposed Route in Muncipality a 1/2 Mile of Budget Budget total local ($66K Total ($112K total local ($112K Total Jurisdiction Borough/ Township Found Area (Miles) # Residents Routes (Expenditures) Budget Year Expenditure contribution)* Local Contr.) contribution)* Local Contr.) East Greenville Borough Y #6 0 5548 1468$ 1,370,962 2010$ 247.11 $ ‐ 0.00% $ ‐ 0.00% Upper Hanover Township Y #6 2.36 6000 1031$ 2,767,796 2010$ 461.30 $ 14,977 0.54%$ 25,461 0.92% Emmaus Borough Y #6 0.4 12,000 2038$ 8,206,169 2010$ 683.85 $ 2,538 0.03%$ 4,315 0.05% Hereford Township N #6 2.21 3,170 967$ 464.09 $ 14,025 n/a$ 23,843 n/a Upper Milford Township N #6 5.43 6,889 2532$ 464.09 $ 34,460 n/a$ 58,581 n/a Totals 10 11,548 8,036$ 4,138,758.00 (avg)$ 464.09 $ 66,000 $ 112,200 LOW Local Contribution Goal (66%)$ 66,000 (Total Low Cost ‐ $100,000) (cost/MILE)*$ 6,346.15 HIGH Local Contribution Goal (66%)$ 112,200 (Total High Cost ‐ $170,000) (cost/MILE)*$ 10,788.46
Assumptions: 1. Only townships/boroughs impacted by the routes "recommended for further feasiblity analysis" are included in our analysis 2. Allocations are weighted by distance of route within a respective municipality 3. Estimates are all based on General Fund Total Expenditures 4. We have provided both LOW and HIGH Total match scenarios, based on 30% contribution and ranges of $40‐60K we discussed for total local contribution
* Cost/mile is for the length of the proposed route within each municipality Local Match Costs Estimates ‐ Even Distribution Based on Jurisdictions in Which Route is Located
Pottstown‐Pennsburg via Gilbertsville LOW Local Contribution Scenario HIGH Local Contribution Scenario
Borough/ Township Borough/ Per Capita Contribution Township General Found General Fund ($40K total Contribution Budget Proposed Route in Budget Budget local % of Budget ($40K ($60K total local % of Budget ($60K Jurisdiction Borough/ Township Found Area # Residents (Expenditures) Budget Year Expenditure contribution)* Total Local Contr.) contribution)* Total Local Contr.) Pottstown Borough Y #2/#5 21,859$ 11,087,903 2010$ 507.25 $ 12,257 0.11%$ 18,857 0.17% W Pottsgrove Township N #2 3,815$ 3,018,123 2010$ 791.12 $ 12,257 0.41%$ 18,857 0.62% Lower Pottsgrove Township Y #2/#5 12,710$ 5,390,850 2009$ 424.14 $ 12,257 0.23%$ 18,857 0.35% Upper Pottsgrove Township Y #2/#5 4390$ 2,295,328 2009$ 522.85 $ 12,257 0.53%$ 18,857 0.82% Pennsburg Borough Y #5/#4/#7 3000$ 1,484,185 2010$ 494.73 $ 12,257 0.83%$ 18,857 1.27% New Hanover Township Y #2/#5 7369$ 3,017,520 2010$ 409.49 $ 12,257 0.41%$ 18,857 0.62% Douglass Township Y #5 9104$ 2,948,323 2009$ 323.85 $ 12,257 0.42%$ 18,857 0.64% Totals 62,247 $ 29,242,231.93 $ 85,800 $ 132,000 LOW Local Contribution Goal (66%)$ 85,800 (Total Low Cost ‐$130,000) (cost/resident)*$ 1.38 HIGH Local Contribution Goal (66%)$ 132,000 (Total High Cost ‐ $200,000) (cost/resident)*$ 1.38
East Greenville‐Emmaus
LOW Local Contribution Scenario HIGH Local Contribution Scenario
Borough/ Township Borough/ Per Capita Contribution Township General Found General Fund ($30K total Contribution Budget Proposed Route in Budget Budget local % of Budget ($30K ($50K total local % of Budget ($50K Jurisdiction Borough/ Township Found Area # Residents (Expenditures) Budget Year Expenditure contribution)* Total Local Contr.) contribution)* Total Local Contr.) East Greenville Borough Y #6 5548$ 1,370,962 2010$ 247.11 $ 13,200 0.96%$ 22,440 1.64% Upper Hanover Township Y #6 6000$ 2,767,796 2010$ 461.30 $ 13,200 0.48%$ 22,440 0.81% Emmaus Borough Y #6 12,000$ 8,206,169 2010$ 683.85 $ 13,200 0.16%$ 22,440 0.27% Hereford Township N #6 3,170 n/a$ 464.09 $ 13,200 n/a$ 22,440 n/a Upper Milford Township N #6 6,889 n/a$ 464.09 $ 13,200 n/a$ 22,440 n/a Totals 11,548 $ 4,138,758.00 (avg)$ 464.09 $ 66,000 $ 112,200 LOW Local Contribution Goal (66%)$ 66,000 (Total Low Cost ‐ $100,000) (cost/resident)*$ 5.72 HIGH Local Contribution Goal (66%)$ 112,200 (Total High Cost ‐ $170,000) (cost/resident)*$ 9.72
Assumptions: 1. Only townships/boroughs impacted by the routes "recommended for further feasiblity analysis" are included in our analysis 2. Allocations are based on an even distribution among all municipalities where route is located 3. Estimates are all based on General Fund Total Expenditures 4. We have provided both LOW and HIGH Total match scenarios, based on a ranges of $85,800‐$132,000 for local match
*Cost/resident for total residents within jurisdiction