Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission October 2000

'HODZDUH9DOOH\5HJLRQDO3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ %RXUVH%XLOGLQJWK)ORRU 6,QGHSHQGHQFH0DOO(DVW 3KLODGHOSKLD3$ ZZZGYUSFRUJ

'HODZDUHÃ9DOOH\Ã5HJLRQDOÃ3ODQQLQJÃ&RPPLVVLRQ 2FWREHUÃ Created in 1965, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is an interstate, intercounty and intercity agency that provides continuing, comprehensive and coordinated planning to shape a vision for the future growth of the Delaware Valley region. The region includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties, as well as the City of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and Mercer counties in New Jersey. DVRPC provides technical assistance and services; conducts high priority studies that respond to the requests and demands of member state and local governments; fosters cooperation among various constituents to forge a consensus on diverse regional issues; determines and meets the needs of the private sector; and practices public outreach efforts to promote two-way communication and public awareness of regional issues and the Commission.

Our logo is adapted from the official DVRPC seal, and is designed as a stylized image of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole, while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey.

DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC’s state and local member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for its findings and conclusions, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies.

cover design: The cover contains photographs of the Jenkintown Station parking lot and the Glenside Station building and inbound platform superimposed on a copy of a conceptual improvement plan for the Glenside business district prepared for the Commercial District Enhancement Plan for the Township of Cheltenham, by Carter van Dyke Associates.

w—p2I2X2xo˜le2ƒt—tion2gommutershed

‡—rrington

‡—rminster TQ rorsh—m G@PHP 34PTQ ISP TII IQP 34 34 7 34 Ú 34PQP r—t˜oro DEFUT

34QHW pper22hu˜lin 22 pperÚ Ú worel—ndÚ Ú Ú 5ƒ DEFPUT Ú TQ erdsley Ú 6 e˜ington SQP 6 Ú7Ú 34 xorth2rills xo˜le 7 PQP UQ qlenside Ú76 7 7 34 6 5ƒ 7 7 7 7 7 ƒpringfield 5ƒ 7 ƒurvey2‚esponses 6tenkintown tenkintown Ú 7 Ú ‡ill2not2™h—nge2st—tions@I gheltenh—m 5ƒ ‡ould2™h—nge2to2qlensideG ‡ould2™h—nge2to2tenkintown Ú 7 6 6 ƒurveyed2ƒt—tions hive‡e‚i2†evvi‰ ilkins2€—rk €rim—ry2ƒtudy2ere— ‚iqsyxev2€vexxsxq2gywwsƒƒsyx €hil—delphi— UQ TII x 34 IHIP €lotted2points2—re24ne—rest2interse™tion42to2the2 DEFUT trip2origin2—s2given2˜y2the2survey2respondentsF wiles Ú 7 ƒurvey2h—teX2w—y2WD2PHHH Chart 1: Noble Station Passenger Profile Survey Date: May 9, 2000

Mode of Arrival

Bus Drop Off 6.0% 6.0%

Drove:SEPTA Lot 38.8%

Walk 35.8%

Drove: On Street Drove: Other 4.5% 9.0%

Suggestions and Comments Number of Comments Improve access across tracks 7 Better amenities at Noble Station needed 5 Increase parking at nearby stations 4 Repair York Rd. stairs 3 Improve overall SEPTA service 3 Free or reduced price parking needed 2 Overcrowding / additional train cars needed 1 Positive remarks 1

Final Destination Station

Other

30th Street

University City

Suburban

Market East

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of Responses

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission w—p2P2X2ilkins2€—rk2ƒt—tion2gommutershed

‡—rrington

‡—rminster

TQ G@PHP rorsh—m 34PTQ 34ISP 34TII 34IQP 34PQP r—t˜oro DEFRUT

34QHW pper22hu˜lin 22 pper worel—nd DEFPUT TQ erdsley 6 e˜ington SQP xorth2rills 6 34 Úxo˜le UQ qlenside 6 34PQP 6 tenkintown ƒpringfield tenkintown 6 Ú ƒurvey2‚esponses Ú 7 Ú ‡ill2not2™h—nge2st—tions gheltenh—m ÚÚ 7 I Ú Ú Ú 5ƒ ‡ould2™h—nge2to2qlensideG@ Ú ÚÚÚ 7 Ú Ú ÚÚ ÚÚÚ 7 ‡ould2™h—nge2to2tenkintown ilkins 5ƒ ÚÚÚ 7Ú Ú Ú Ú €—rk Ú ÚÚ 7Ú 7 6 ƒurveyed2ƒt—tions ÚÚ 65 Ú Ú ÚÚ hive‡e‚i2†evvi‰ Ú Ú €rim—ry2ƒtudy2ere— €hil—delphi— Ú ÚÚÚ Ú UQ ‚iqsyxev2€vexxsxq2gywwsƒƒsyx 34TII ÚÚ IHIPx Ú Ú €lotted2points2—re24ne—rest2interse™tion42to2the2 DEFUT Ú trip2origin2—s2given2˜y2the2survey2respondentsF wiles ƒurvey2h—teX2w—y2WD2PHHH Chart 2: Elkins Park Station Passenger Profile Survey Date: May 9, 2000

Mode of Arrival

Carpool 0.6% Bus 0.6% Bicycle 1.7% Drop Off Drove: Other 6.3% 8.0%

Walk Drove: On Street 43.2% 14.8%

Drove:SEPTA Lot 25.0% Suggestions and Comments Number of Comments More Elkins Park parking needed 16 Better Elkins Park service needed 15 Improve station amenities 9 Overcrowding / additional train cars needed 8 Pleased with station personnel and/or amenities 7 Commuter parking concerns (on-street parking, monthly permit issues, etc.) 7 Poor on-time performance 6 Complaints concerning current construction 5 Bicycle issues 3 Service coordination needed 2 Change Jenkintown and Glenside to zone 2 2

Final Destination Station

Other

Temple

30th Street

University City

Market East

Suburban

0 102030405060708090 Number of Responses

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission w—p2Q2X2xorth2rills2ƒt—tion2gommutershed

‡—rrington

5ƒ 7 ‡—rminster

PHP rorsh—m G@ TQ 34PTQ 34ISP 34TII 34IQP 34PQP r—t˜oro RUT DEF pper Ú hu˜lin QHW ÚÚ 5ƒ 34 Ú 2 pper Ú Ú Ú Ú Ú worel—nd Ú DEFPUT ÚÚ5ƒ Ú TQ 5ƒerdsley 5ƒ 7 e˜ington Ú 5ƒ SQP xorth2rills Ú5ƒ 6 34 Ú 76Ú xo˜le 7 5ƒ 7 5ƒ UQ 5ƒ 7 qlenside 6 34PQP ÚÚ 6 ƒpringfield Ú tenkintown ƒurvey2‚esponses tenkintown6 5ƒ gheltenh—m Ú ‡ill2not2™h—nge2st—tionsG@I 5ƒ ‡ould2™h—nge2to2qlenside 7 ‡ould2™h—nge2to2tenkintown 6 6 ƒurveyed2ƒt—tions hive‡e‚i2†evvi‰ €hil—delphi— ilkins2€—rk UQ €rim—ry2ƒtudy2ere— ‚iqsyxev2€vexxsxq2gywwsƒƒsyx 34TII x IHIPUT €lotted2points2—re24ne—rest2interse™tion42to2the2 DEF trip2origin2—s2given2˜y2the2survey2respondentsF wiles ƒurvey2h—teX2w—y2IHD2PHHH Chart 3: North Hills Station Passenger Profile Survey Date: May 10, 2000

Mode of Arrival

Drop Off Bicycle 7.2% 1.4%

Walk 30.4%

Drove:SEPTA Lot 59.4%

Drove: On Street 1.4%

Suggestions and Comments Number of Comments Prefer Glenside parking expansion 5 Improve access across tracks 4 Positive remarks / satisfied customers 4 Security concerns and issues 3 Poor R5 on-time performance 3 Prefer Jenkintown parking expansion 3 Prefer Ft. Washington parking expansion 3 Implement automated passenger service information system 2 Improve railcar maintenance 2 Restructure SEPTA service 2 Overcrowding / additional train cars needed 1

Final Destination Station

Other

30th Street

Market

Suburban

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Number of Responses

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission w—p2R2X2erdsley2ƒt—tion2gommutershed

‡—rrington

‡—rminster rorsh—m G@PHP TQ 34PTQ 34ISP 34TII 34IQP 34PQP r—t˜oro DEFRUT 5ƒ Ú 34QHW pper22hu˜lin 22 pper

Ú worel—nd DEFPUT ÚÚ TQ Ú erdsley Ú5ƒ ÚÚ Ú 5ƒ7 6 e˜ington SQP 6 ÚÚ5ƒ 34 xorth2rills 5ƒ 7 xo˜le 5ƒ Ú UQ qlenside 6 34PQP ƒpringfield 6 6tenkintown ƒurvey2‚esponses tenkintown Ú ‡ill2not2™h—nge2st—tionsG@I gheltenh—m 5ƒ ‡ould2™h—nge2to2qlenside 7 ‡ould2™h—nge2to2tenkintown 6 ilkins2€—rk 6 ƒurveyed2ƒt—tions hive‡e‚i2†evvi‰ UQ €rim—ry2ƒtudy2ere— ‚iqsyxev2€vexxsxq2gywwsƒƒsyx €hil—delphi— 34TII x IHIPUT €lotted2points2—re24ne—rest2interse™tion42to2the2 DEF trip2origin2—s2given2˜y2the2survey2respondentsF wiles ƒurvey2h—teX2w—y2IHD2PHHH Chart 4: Ardsley Station Passenger Profile Survey Date: May 10, 2000

Mode of Arrival

Bicycle 3.2%

Drop Off 25.8%

Drove: On Street 3.2% Drove:SEPTA Lot 67.7%

Suggestions and Comments Number of Comments General parking issues (cost, increased lot size at other stations, geometry, etc.) 9 Improve station amenities 5 Bicycle issues 2 Overcrowding / more frequent service 2 Better vandalism prevention 2 Positive remarks concerning station renovations 2 Need for better access across tracks at Glenside 2 Reduce fares 1 Better maintenance of Suburban Station 1

Final Destination Station

Other

30th Street

Market East

Suburban

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Number of Responses

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission w—p2S2X2qlenside2ƒt—tion2gommutershed

6„ 7 ‡—rrington 6„ 7

ÚÊ

ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ‡—rminster ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ TQ rorsh—m G@PHP 34PTQ 34ISP 34TII 34IQP ÚÊ 7 ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ 6„ 34PQP r—t˜oro UT DEF ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ 6„ ÚÊ 34QHW ÚÊÚÊ pper22hu˜lin ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ 22 pper ÚÊ 6„ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ 6„ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊworel—ndÚÊ ÚÊ6„ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ Ú6„ÊÚÊ6„ÚÊ PUT ÚÊ ÚÊ 6„ DEF ÚÊ6„ÚÊ 6„ ÚÊ 6„ TQ ÚÊÚÊ6„ÚÊ ÚÊ 6„ ÚÊerdsley ÚÊ ÚÊ e˜ington ÚÊ 6 ÚÊ ÚÊ6„ ÚÊ SQP ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ6„ÚÊ 34 xorth2rills 6 ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ6„ xo˜le ÚÊ6„ 7 ÚÊ6„ ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ 7 6„ ÚÊ 6„ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ6„ ÚÊÚÊ PQP 6„ UQ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ 6 34 ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ6ÚÊÚ5ÊÚÊ6„ Ú6„Ê ÚÊÚÊ6„ ÚÊÚÊ6„ ÚÊ 7 7ÚÊÚÊ6„ÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ6„ 7 ƒurvey2‚esponses ƒpringfield ÚÊÚÊÚÊ 6„ 76„ÚÊ ÚÊ tenkintown ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ 6 tenkintown 6„ 6„ ÚÊÚÊ qlenside Ú6„Ê ÚÊ ÚÊ 7 €refer2ixp—nsion2—t2tenkintown ÚÊ I 6„gheltenh—m 6„ €refer2ixp—nsion2—t2iither2ƒt—tionG@ 6„ÚÊ ÚÊ ‡ill2not2™h—nge2st—tions ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ 6 6 ƒurveyed2ƒt—tions hive‡e‚i2†evvi‰ 6„ ÚÊ ilkins2€—rk €rim—ry2ƒtudy2ere— ‚iqsyxev2€vexxsxq2gywwsƒƒsyx €hil—delphi— UQ IHIPx €lotted2points2—re24ne—rest2interse™tion42to2the2 DEFUT trip2origin2—s2given2˜y2the2survey2respondentsF wiles ƒurvey2h—teX2w—y2IID2PHHH Chart 5: Glenside Station Passenger Profile Survey Date: May 11, 2000

Mode of Arrival

Drop Off Bicycle 9.2% 0.3%

Drove:SEPTA Lot Walk 43.3% 29.1%

Drove: Other 3.4% Drove: On Street 14.7% Suggestions and Comments Number of Comments More Glenside parking needed 46 Repair / improve access across tracks 16 Increase parking lot size at various nearby stations 15 Better maintenance of parking lot / station 14 Overcrowding / additional train cars needed 11 Increase SEPTA service at various stations 11 Increase security 7 Poor on-time performance 7 Satisfied customers 6 Improve methods of ticket sales 5 Provide accurate, timely train info to customers 4 Improve permit enforcement 3 Get tenant for coffee shop 2 Reduce fares 2

Final Destinations

Other

Temple

30th Street

University City

Market East

Suburban

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Number of Responses

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission w—p2T2X2tenkintown2ƒt—tion2gommutershed

6„ ÚÊ

6„ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ‡—rrington ÚÊ 6„ ÚÊ ÚÊ

ÚÊ ÚÊ ‡—rminster ÚÊÚÊ6„ ÚÊ ÚÊ TQ rorsh—m ÚÊ G@PHP 34PTQ ÚÊ 4ISP TII ÚÊ6„ 34IQP 3 ÚÊÚÊ 34 6„ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ6„ 6„6„ 34PQP 6„ r—t˜oro ÚÊ RUT ÚÊ DEF ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ 34QHW pper22hu˜lin ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ 22 pperÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ6„ ÚÊ6„ 6„ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚ6„ÊÚÊworel—nd ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ 6„ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ FPUT ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ DE 6„ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ TQ ÚÊÚÊ6„ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ 6„ ÚÊ6„ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ erdsley ÚÊ6„ÚÊ e˜ington 5ƒÚÊ6ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚ6„Ê ÚÊÚÊ 34SQP ÚÊ xorth2rills 6„6 ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ6„ ÚÊ6„ xo˜leÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ 6„ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ6„6„ ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ PQP UQ 6„ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ6 34 qlenside 6 ÚÊÚÊÚÊ6„ ÚÊ ÚÊ ƒpringfield ÚÊÚÊ5ƒ 6„ 6„ ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ 6„ ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ƒurvey2‚esponses ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ6„ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ 5ÚÊÚÊ6„ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ6„ ÚÊ 6ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊtenkintownÚÊ 6„6„ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ 6„ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ 6„ÚÊ6„ ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ6„ÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ Ú6„ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ 5ƒ €refer2ixp—nsion2—t2qlensideI ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ G@ gheltenh—mÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ 6„ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ 6„ €refer2ixp—nsion2—t2iither2ƒt—tion ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ6„ÚÊ ‡ill2not2™h—nge2st—tions tenkintown ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ 6 ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ 6 ƒurveyed2ƒt—tions hive‡e‚i2†evvi‰ ilkins2€—rk UQ ‚iqsyxev2€vexxsxq2gywwsƒƒsyx €hil—delphi— €rim—ry2ƒtudy2ere— UT TII F x 34 IHIPDE €lotted2points2—re24ne—rest2interse™tion42to2the2 ÚÊ trip2origin2—s2given2˜y2the2survey2respondentsF wiles ÚÊ ƒurvey2h—teX2w—y2ITD2PHHH Chart 6: Jenkintown Station Passenger Profile Survey Date: May 16, 2000

Mode of Arrival

Carpool 0.4%

Bus Taxi 0.2% 0.2%

Bicycle 0.2% Drop Off Train 6.5% 2.3%

Walk 16.9%

Drove: Other 0.8%

Drove: On Street Drove:SEPTA Lot 7.2% 65.4%

Suggestions and Comments Number of Comments More spaces at Jenkintown needed 72 Parking policy concerns (cost, permit sales, overnight parking, etc.) 25 Improve SEPTA service frequency 24 More monthly permit sales needed 18 Improve station and parking lot maintenance 16 Overcrowding / additional train cars needed 14 Improve parking lot geometry 14 More parking at surrounding area stations needed 13 Improve ticketing enforcement 12 Improve bicycle facilities 11 Positive comments on service 9 Fare policy issues 7 Poor on-time performance 6 More / better handicapped services needed 2

Final Destinations

Other

Temple

30th Street

University City

Market East

Suburban

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Number of Responses

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission