Transportation Assesment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SECTION 3 TRANSPORTATION ASSESMENT 122 | THE PHILADELPHIA GAMING ADVISORY TASK FORCE Introduction In addition to analyzing the major advantages and challenges associated with potential gaming sites (see page 77), the Task Force also conducted an in-depth transportation access study to assess the impact of increased traffic at potential casino locations. This assessment begins with an estimation of “mode splits”, or the percentage of casino visitors expected to arrive by various modes of transportation. It is followed by a detailed technical analysis current and projected traffic conditions on city streets surrounding potential gaming sites. This traffic capacity analysis is based upon current traffic counts and intersection conditions, determination of current roadway capacity levels, and modeling of anticipated additional local traffic generated by development of a 3,000-device slot parlor. Mode of Arrival Understanding how gamers are likely to arrive at Philadelphia slots parlors is a necessary first step in assessing the potential traffic impacts associated with casino development. Toward this end, the Task Force drew upon surveys of potential gamers in the region as well as the industry expertise of its consultants to estimate the percentage of visitors that would arrive by various modes of transportation at different casino locations. These “mode splits” can vary according to the relative location of Philadelphia’s two slots parlors (see page 202 for analysis of casino development scenarios) as well as a casino operator’s marketing strategy. Graph 3.1 displays the expected typical distribution of transportation modes for a casino located in a given area of the City. An explanation of the methodology used in developing these mode splits is included on page 192. Transportation Assessment | 123 GRAPH 3.1: Mode Splits FINDING: Private automobile will be the overwhelming preferred mode of arrival at Philadelphia gaming sites. As in other gaming markets, private automobile is expected to be the preferred method of transportation for people visiting Philadelphia slots parlors. It is expected that more than half of gamers would drive to a casino located in or near Center City, and more than three-quarters would arrive by car at other sites in the city. Private auto use could account for 80 percent or more of visitors at casinos further from Center City, such as those along the South Delaware or close to the I-76/Route 1 interchange. FINDING: Philadelphia casinos are expected to rely on chartered buses significantly less than Atlantic City, but still will draw approximately 8 percent of their visitors by coach. The share of Philadelphia slots parlor visitors arriving by casino bus is expected to be between 8 and 9 percent, substantially less than Atlantic City, which currently draws 20 percent of its customers via coach. The Philadelphia casino bus share is expected to be consistent across different potential gaming sites, although a given casino operator may choose to pursue a marketing strategy that relies more or less on bringing in customers by charter bus. Given the high taxes on gaming in Pennsylvania, however, Philadelphia slots parlors may not be able to compete as successfully for bus trip customers with the much lower taxed Atlantic City casinos. 124 | THE PHILADELPHIA GAMING ADVISORY TASK FORCE FINDING: Public transit share would be significant only for casinos located in Center City and, to a lesser degree, at Penn’s Landing. Despite Philadelphia’s extensive transit infrastructure, it is anticipated than no more than 20 percent of casino customers would arrive via transit at a Center City site, and as little as 2 percent for a site along the South Delaware. Transit use would be highest among Center City residents, declining with distance and the availability of transit service. While a casino operator at a site with strong transit access could make an effort to increase transit usage to its gaming venue, there is no significant precedent for Philadelphia to draw upon in this respect. More than half of regional survey respondents (52 percent) say that having public transportation proximate to a Philadelphia casino would be important to them. However, current behavior heavily favoring personal automobile use – 83 percent of respondents said they drive into the city for leisure activity – suggests that while people may think transit is important in general or for others, they personally continue to drive. FINDING: Pedestrian volume to Philadelphia casino locations will be minimal except for Center City or Penn’s Landing locations. Pedestrian volume could account for as much as three or four percent of total arrivals at a Center City or Penn’s Landing casino, but other potential gaming locations throughout the city would experience negligible pedestrian traffic. Barriers to pedestrian access are too great to realize significant volumes elsewhere. FINDING: Taxi volumes would be maximized at sites in, or close to, Center City. As much as 11 percent of Philadelphia casino customers may arrive by taxi at a Center City location. This percentage would drop in half for more remote locations. Transportation Access Analysis The following is a detailed analysis of existing and projected traffic volumes on streets surrounding potential gaming sites, as well as an engineering review of the capacity of those streets and intersections to carry the increased volumes. A summary of current traffic volumes on major roads near potential gaming sites and the projected additional traffic demand generated by casino development at each site are presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. For each site, the numbers in the first row are current traffic volumes based on electronic counts of vehicles conducted during the period of May 10-17. The second row shows the estimated number of additional vehicles on weekdays and Saturdays if a slots- only casino were to be placed at that location. The estimates vary between sites for two main reasons: (1) Based on Task Force projections, different sites will experience different levels of visitation based on their varying proximity and accessibility to patrons (see Appendix on Revenue Methodology on page 282) and (2) it is estimated that some sites will draw more Transportation Assessment | 125 patrons by public transit and therefore the number of automobiles would be less. It is important to note that conclusions about potential congestion problems at these sites cannot be drawn without analyzing projected traffic volumes within the context of existing roadway and intersection capacity and without an understanding of peak traffic volumes. A projected sharp increase in traffic volume at a given site may or may not be accompanied by sufficient roadway and intersection capacity, and this capacity may or may not be strained at peak volumes. These variables are considered in-depth in the analysis that follows. TABLE 3.1: Current and Projected 24-Hour Traffic Volumes at Potential Gaming Sites Sheetmetal Workers Site Weekday Saturday Current traffic volume (Columbus south of Washington) 44,579 49,119 Projected additional casino volume 11,000 25,200 South Delaware Site Current traffic volume (Columbus south of Washington) 44,579 49,119 Projected additional casino volume 10,800 24,700 Penn's Landing Site Current traffic volume (Columbus south of Market) 31,045 32,171 Projected additional casino volume 9,630 21,950 Old Incinerator Site Current traffic volume (Columbus south of Spring Garden) 28,467 29,007 Projected additional casino volume 12,100 27,500 Fishtown Site Current traffic volume (N. Delaware north of Berks) 24,414 19,353 Projected additional casino volume 9,540 21,740 Navy Yard Site Current traffic volume (S. Broad north of Tasker) 26,252 26,136 Projected additional casino volume 8,330 21,150 Center City/Market East Site Current traffic volume (Market west of 12th) 22,539 23,505 Projected additional casino volume 10,070 23,900 Budd Site Current traffic volume (Wissahickon north of Hunting Park) 15,502 12,914 Projected additional casino volume 11,670 28,230 Adam's Mark Site Current traffic volume (City Avenue east of Monument) 58,599 54,264 Projected additional casino volume 11,670 28,230 126 | THE PHILADELPHIA GAMING ADVISORY TASK FORCE TABLE 3.2: Current and Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes at Potential Gaming Sites Weekday peak from 4-6 PM; Saturday peak from 5-10 PM Sheetmetal Workers Site Weekday Saturday Current traffic volume (Columbus south of Washington) 3,021 3,140 Projected additional casino volume 490 1,380 South Delaware Site Current traffic volume (Columbus south of Washington) 3,021 3,140 Projected additional casino volume 480 1,350 Penn's Landing Site Current traffic volume (Columbus south of Market) 2,264 1,775 Projected additional casino volume 430 1,200 Old Incinerator Site Current traffic volume (Columbus south of Spring Garden) 2,625 1,740 Projected additional casino volume 540 1,500 Fishtown Site Current traffic volume (N. Delaware north of Berks) 2,170 1,034 Projected additional casino volume 430 1,190 Navy Yard Site Current traffic volume (S. Broad north of Tasker) 1,834 1,579 Projected additional casino volume 400 1,100 Center City/Market East Site Current traffic volume (Market west of 12th) 1,490 1,400 Projected additional casino volume 450 1,250 Budd Site Current traffic volume (Wissahickon north of Hunting Park) 1,284 659 Projected additional casino volume 550 1,540 Adam's Mark Site Current traffic volume (City Avenue east of Monument) 4,192 2,942 Projected additional casino volume 550 1,540 Study Design The intent of this transportation access analysis is to present a general overview of the 11 potential gaming sites identified by the Task Force (see page 77) with respect to vehicular access. It is meant to be used as a comparative assessment of the current and future transportation attributes of these locations and should not in any way be interpreted as a detailed analysis of any site of specific development.