Executive Summary

February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 Introduction...... 1 Study Purpose and Process ...... 2 Previous Studies...... 4 Public Outreach ...... 5 Study Area Needs ...... 6 BRT Service Concepts...... 7 BRT Guideway Options...... 19 Dinky Options...... 23 Network Alternatives...... 24 Alternatives Analysis Study Results ...... 27

Figures

Figure ES-1: Primary Study Area and Service Market Area...... 1 Figure ES-2: The Federal Alternatives Analysis Process ...... 2 Figure ES-3: Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT AA Study Process...... 3 Figure ES-4: Summary of BRT Service Concepts Development Process ...... 7 Figure ES-5: Final BRT Service Concept 1 ...... 8 Figure ES-6: Final BRT Service Concept 2 ...... 10 Figure ES-7: Final BRT Service Concept 3 ...... 12 Figure ES-8: Final BRT Service Concept 4 ...... 14 Figure ES-9: Feeder Bus Network ...... 16 Figure ES-10: Southern Park-and-Ride Locations ...... 17 Figure ES-11: Northern Park-and-Ride Location...... 18 Figure ES-12: Final BRT Guideway (Map 1 of 3)...... 20 Figure ES-13: Final BRT Guideway (Map 2 of 3)...... 21 Figure ES-14: Final BRT Guideway (Map 3 of 3)...... 22 Figure ES-15: BRT Alternative 4C – Daily 2025 Core Area Bus Trips...... 29

Tables

Table ES-1: Summary of Previous Studies...... 4 Table ES-2: Public Outreach Meetings ...... 5 Table ES-3: Composition of Network Alternatives...... 25 Table ES-4: Network Alternatives – Summary of Attributes ...... 26 Table ES-5: Ridership Summary...... 28

STV Incorporated ES-i February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT), in cooperation with the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) and the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), conducted the Central New Jersey Route 1 Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis (Route 1 BRT AA) along the U.S. Route 1 corridor between the City of Trenton (Trenton) and the Township of South Brunswick, New Jersey. The Route 1 BRT AA began in early 2004, with the purpose of identifying transportation needs and potential transit improvements within the primary study area shown in Figure ES-1. The potential service market area for any proposed transit enhancements would encompass the entirety of Mercer, Somerset and Middlesex Counties as well as portions of Monmouth, and Burlington Counties in New Jersey and Bucks County in Pennsylvania.

This study builds upon previous planning efforts in the region that have sought to identify congestion relief along U.S. Route 1 as well as transit enhancements to the relatively low density development patterns present in the study corridor. The Route 1 BRT AA has been prepared consistent with the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) guidance for an AA, which includes identifying the transportation and related community needs of the study area, devising strategic transit enhancements that address those needs and selecting, through local consensus, the most effective solution that considers the goals of the study and the resources available for future project implementation. Figure ES-1: Primary Study Area and Service Market Area

Primary StudyFlemington Area and Service Market Area Millstone US Route 1 Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis Edison Raritan New Brunswick Hillsborough

HUNTERDON 206 Milltown Sayreville Delaware North Brunswick South Franklin River East Amwell SOMERSET 18 27 Montgomery 533 East Brunswick 1 20 2 518 518 Rocky Hill

130 Hopewell Boro Spotswood 9 522 JT South Brunswick N Ol d Bridg e Helmetta 522 West Amwell Princeton Twp r o id rr Princeton o MIDDLESEX 27 ute 92 P C Ro ro po Boro se Hopewell Twp t d 535 s Prince ton Unive rsity a Jamesburg T e h h Marlboro Township 31 e rt D o in 569 ky NPlainsboro

e k Pennington 571 i p n N MERCER r u T EW Prin c et on P 533 ENNS Ju n c ti on Cranbury J Manalapan Lawrence N JE 546 RS YLV 1 Monroe E 535 13 0 ANIA Y 571 Englishtown 95 29 5 526 133

583 West Windsor Ewing Hightstown 33 Freehold We s t T r en to n 206 Legend 3 BUCKS R 31 Boro A 1 T BUS Ha m il to n East Windsor P 535 E S Primary study area 539 571 33 Yardl ey 29 526 Service market area Trenton 33 13 0 533 33 Washington95 Roosevelt Commuter rail station 95 Trenton Hamilton Millstone Commuter rail line 526 129 1 500-level county road 95 195

R 130 A Interstate/US/State highway T 29 P MONMOUTH E S Allentown Municipal boundary 19 5 Upper Freehold County boundary

Bordentown NJTPA/DVRPC boundary Chesterfield BURLINGTON OCEAN 202Miles Source: ESRI, Inc., NJTPA and DVRPC. N

STV Incorporated ES-1 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

STUDY PURPOSE AND PROCESS

The purpose of the Route 1 BRT AA was to identify transit opportunities that would address the transportation needs of the study area – identified through an extensive public outreach campaign, build on existing resources, support economic development, and provide a reasonable probability for moving forward to the next phases of project development.

The study followed the step-by-step approach defined by the FTA for projects seeking federal funds. As shown in Figure ES-2, the first step was to establish the limits of the study area, which was followed by the documentation of existing conditions and identification of transportation needs. BRT alternatives were then developed that would meet the needs of the study area and work with its existing infrastructure and resources. The alternatives were reviewed with respect to several evaluation criteria, and with additional feedback from the public and other stakeholders, final recommendations were made for advancement of transit alternatives.

Throughout this process, input and guidance was continually sought from the public and regional stakeholders in outreach activities that included open house meetings, targeted outreach meetings, alternative consensus building work sessions and presentations to the Central Jersey Transportation Forum and the BRT Subcommittee. Feedback from the public outreach effort was the primary source for the development of transportation and community needs and goals and the subsequent BRT alternatives. Figure ES-2: The Federal Alternatives Analysis Process

Alternatives Analysis Process

Define Study Area, Round 1 Needs and Goals

Identify Alternatives to Meet Needs

Identify Best Opportunities for Transit Improvements

Identify Short and Long Term Recommendations

Next Steps Round 2 Advanced Planning and DEIS PUBLICOUTREACH AND AGENCY COORDINATION

STV Incorporated ES-2 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Although a general AA process is prescribed by the FTA, the specific process followed by the Route 1 BRT AA, illustrated in Figure ES-3, is more complex. This process included all of the components of the federal AA process, but broke the identification of alternatives into several sub-tasks. Figure ES-3: Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT AA Study Process

Preliminary Research (Corridor tours, previous studies review, existing transit service review, Census data analysis, etc.)

Public Input:

Purpose and Needs Statement Working Group

Targeted Outreach BRT Service Concepts Public Open Houses Theoretical BRT Subcommittee

BRT Service Concepts Preliminary

Working Group Preparation of BRT BRT Dinky Travel Demand Guideway Options Service Concepts Alternatives Targeted Outreach (Ridership) Preliminary Revision 1 Preliminary Model BRT Subcommittee

BRT Service Concepts Revision 2

Qualitative Evaluation of Alternatives Working Group

BRT BRT Dinky Guideway Options Service Concepts Alternatives Final Final Final

Working Group

Network Alternatives

Travel Demand Cost Estimation Environmental Community (Ridership) -Capital Screen Consensus Modeling -O&M

Working Group

BRT Subcommittee Quantitative Evaluation of Alternatives Targeted Outreach

Public Open Houses Final Recommendations

STV Incorporated ES-3 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Since the Route 1 BRT AA dealt with alternatives that were each complete transit networks, the process for developing those alternatives involved several simultaneous analyses. The final “network alternatives” were composed of a BRT service concept, a guideway alternative on which the BRT routes would travel and a Dinky option. Additionally, the BRT service concepts were composed of BRT routes, feeder buses and prospective park-and-ride locations.

The alternatives for the BRT service concepts, BRT guideway and the Dinky were developed simultaneously so that they would be compatible with each other, but evaluated as individual components before being combined into network alternatives. The final recommendations for those three components were then combined into several network alternatives that were reviewed for performance in several categories, including costs, benefits and environmental impacts.

PREVIOUS STUDIES

Several studies and plans within the region and the Route 1 BRT study area that have been completed in the recent past are summarized in Table ES-1. The results of these studies were used as a starting point for much of the analysis performed in the Route 1 BRT AA. Table ES-1: Summary of Previous Studies Study Status Study Focus A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is being finalized under the direction of US Army Corps of Engineers for NJ Turnpike Authority: Route DEIS Nearly Route 92, a proposed 6.7 mile 4-lane limited access east-west 92 EIS Study Completed facility between U.S. Route 1 near Ridge Road in South Brunswick and the NJ Turnpike at Exit 8A interchange (at the South Brunswick/Monroe Twp. border). FHWA issued This study developed a preferred roadway improvement NJDOT: Penn’s Neck Area ROD on April alternative to improve connections between Alexander and EIS Study 1, 2005 Fisher Roads and evaluated its impacts. GMTMA: Route 1 Corridor This study advanced the BRT analysis performed by the CJTF. Completed Bus Rapid Transit Concept Evaluated environmental and physical constraints for March 2003 Study constructing a BRT system in the U.S. Route 1 area. Middlesex County: The study identified traffic volume and safety characteristics in Comprehensive Traffic Completed the area adjacent to the Exit 8A interchange with the NJ Safety Analysis and Study of 2003 Turnpike. Southern Middlesex County Middlesex County: Southern Completed Focused on the traffic conditions in an area around the Exit 8A Middlesex Traffic and Safety 2002-2003 interchange of the NJ Turnpike. Study Established the goals and issues that the CJTF was organized to address, highlighted roundtable discussions with regional stakeholders and established the desire for light rail or bus rapid transit in the region. Initial modeling results lead to conclusion CJTF (DVRPC): Executive Completed that “light rail was not economically feasible in the region”. The Summary of the CJTF 2002 forum, after considering analysis done by NJ TRANSIT, recommended the examination of the feasibility of bus rapid transit (BRT), which was less capital intensive, requires a lower ridership threshold and has more routing flexibility than light rail. Focused on the need to eliminate bottlenecks, improved safety, NJDOT Route 1 Safety Completed reduce crashes and address pedestrian needs in the U.S. Impact Review 2003 Route 1 Corridor.

STV Incorporated ES-4 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

PUBLIC OUTREACH

An extensive public outreach and agency coordination process was designed to cover the large and diverse study area of the Route 1 BRT AA. The goal of this effort was to establish a sound purpose and needs statement that would serve as the foundation for all subsequent study tasks and to obtain feedback on the alternatives developed in response to those needs. In total, 70 meetings were conducted during the course of the study, as is listed in Table ES-2. Table ES-2: Public Outreach Meetings Type of Meeting Number of Meetings Open Houses 9 Targeted Outreach 37 Alternative Consensus Building Work Sessions 14 Route 1 BRT Subcommittee 4 Central Jersey Transportation Forum 6 Total Meetings 70

Public outreach was performed in three rounds, which were specifically related to key milestones of the study process:

Round 1 – Introduction to the study and identification of study area needs Round 2 – Development of initial BRT concepts Round 3 – Review of BRT service alternatives, BRT alignments, locations of P&R facilities and Dinky options

Several different outreach strategies were employed throughout the duration of the study:

Open House Meetings – Public meetings in an open house format that afforded the public the opportunity to have one-on-one contact with study team members to answer any questions and record their comments on different phases of the study.

Targeted Outreach – Focused outreach to local municipalities, key institutions, employers and organizations, as well as state agencies and elected officials in an effort to round out public participation throughout the study area. The study team conducted approximately 37 targeted outreach meetings during the course of the study.

Alternative Consensus Building Work Sessions – Work sessions were held with municipalities and major stakeholders located within the core study area to gain feedback on BRT alignment options, proposed development, BRT guideway locations, BRT service concepts and locations for P&R facilities.

Central Jersey Transportation Forum – BRT project development updates were presented throughout the study to the forum at their regularly scheduled quarterly meetings. The forum also provided the study team with information on concurrent studies or projects that could affect the BRT study or should be coordinated with the study.

BRT Subcommittee – The BRT Subcommittee comprised of members from the surrounding counties, mayors from core municipalities and major property owners and

STV Incorporated ES-5 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

businesses. The BRT Subcommittee provided guidance and technical advice to the study team on transportation related issues relating to the study.

This outreach process was supplemented by project newsletters and an interactive website with links to other project sponsors.

STUDY AREA NEEDS

The transportation and community needs of the study area were developed through the results of the public outreach process, technical analysis and agency coordination efforts. A Statement of Needs was developed and documented for the study to guide all subsequent phases of analysis:

Improve the Existing Transit System with more frequent rail or bus service to Princeton Junction and Princeton including an enhanced schedule that better coordinates connections with Northeast Corridor trains. Increase transit and shuttle connections to the primary study area from the Princeton Junction Station to provide more transit options. Increase the availability and quality of transit information and improve the quality of bus stop facilities.

Develop a High Quality Transit System that will increase the number of trips made by transit in the area. This system would need to be frequent, reliable and convenient with direct and more efficient links between the U.S. Route 1 corridor and outlying destinations to compete with the automobile.

Reduce Highway Congestion by diverting the increasing travel demand in the area from single-occupant automobiles, especially during peak commuter periods. Investigate highway improvement projects to help alleviate traffic congestion along U.S. Route 1 improving the reliability of transit travel. Keep transit investments separated from roadway congestion to make them attractive alternatives to driving.

Coordinate Transit and Community Planning by improving coordination between community and transit planning efforts, identifying opportunities for enhanced economic development through public/private partnerships and improving existing transit facilities to establish them as assets to the communities they serve. Focus additional development into compact, pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented patterns providing connectivity between various activity centers.

Enhance Environmental Quality with the use of existing rights-of-way to minimize future land impacts, attractive designs of transit stops and stations that enhance surrounding communities and investments in pedestrian and bicycle facilities along existing and planned transit investments.

These efforts established the framework for the remainder of the study as alternatives were developed and evaluated against their ability to address these needs for this study.

STV Incorporated ES-6 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

BRT SERVICE CONCEPTS

BRT service concepts were first defined and evaluated as theoretical scenarios. The most appropriate of the theoretical scenarios in relation to the study corridor were modified into preliminary BRT service concepts that were tailored to the specifics of the U.S. Route 1 corridor. The preliminary BRT service concepts underwent three revisions (see Figure ES-4) to reflect comments received in working group sessions, targeted outreach meetings, discussions with the BRT Subcommittee and parallel developments on BRT guideway options and Dinky options. The revisions yielded a final set of four BRT service concepts, of which each included three components:

¾ BRT routes – different for each service concept ¾ Feeder network – identical in each service concept ¾ Park-and-ride locations – identical in each service concept

Figure ES-4: Summary of BRT Service Concepts Development Process

Theoretical Preliminary Revision 1 Revision 2 Final

The three components in each of the Final BRT service concepts are:

BRT Routes: The BRT routes in each of the four Final BRT service concepts were designed to be on exclusive guideway where possible to allow fast, direct travel from station to station that is unimpeded by traffic conditions on local roads. These routes would operate primarily in the central, or “core” portion of the primary study area, and would pick up inbound riders from park- and-ride lots or from feeder routes at transfer points. The BRT routes in each of the Final BRT service concepts are:

BRT Service Concept 1 – This BRT service concept was designed to provide direct connections between key origins and destinations and express service between the P&R lots and the more distant employment centers (see Figure ES-5). The service is comprised of five mainline BRT routes:

BRT Route 1 – Local service between the southern P&R lot off of I-295 and the South Brunswick P&R lot, serving the east side of U.S. Route 1 via Princeton Junction.

BRT Route 2 – Local service between the BRT station (anticipated transfer center) located near the Quaker Bridge Mall and the South Brunswick P&R lot, serving the west side of U.S. Route 1 via Princeton.

BRT Routes 3 and 5 – These routes would be express interlined services, which means that BRT Route 3 would operate northbound and return southbound as BRT Route 5.

STV Incorporated ES-7 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Figure ES-5: Final BRT Service Concept 1

West Trenton Montgomery Twp.

4 (E)

Bucks County Princeton I-95 P&R Boro Princeton Shopping Center

New Jersey I-95 P&R Princeton University Ewing

College Forrestal Village Of NJ Rider 4 (B) Center Nursery Canal Pointe Emmons Dr FairMarket Mercer Mall Mercer Nassau Park Univ. 2,4 PU Development 2 New Proposed South North Brunswick Brunswick

Transfer Center Transfer 2 Brunswick P&R 4 4 5 3

Trenton Hamilton Rail East 1 Rail d Carnegie Center a 1 1,3,4,5 o ,2 R , FMC lege 3 Col 3 , Wyeth

Sarnoff , 5 Office Park 1 s/ East Brunswick yer ch 1 (A) Proposed ll Lyn Quaker Bridge ton M South Brunswick 1 ris B Merri Rail Station New Jersey 1 Princeton Junction BRT Route 1 Dinky Track I-295 P&R Northeast Corridor 2 BRT Route 2 Road 3 BRT Route 3 Northeast (express) Corridor Hamilton Plainsboro 4 BRT Route 4 Exclusive BRT West (mid-day only) Guideway Windsor Core BRT 5 BRT Route 5 Station (express) Mercer County Other Station Feeder Route Community NJ Turnpike Park-and-Ride College Twin Rivers Exit 8A Hamilton Not to scale Market Place

STV Incorporated ES-8 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Northbound service (BRT Route 3) would operate between the BRT station (anticipated transfer center) located near the Quaker Bridge Mall and the South Brunswick P&R lot. The service would operate non-stop between the Quaker Bridge Mall and Sarnoff at which point the service would make local station stops serving both the east and west side of U.S. Route 1.

Southbound service (BRT Route 5) would operate between the South Brunswick P&R lot and the BRT station (anticipated transfer center) located near the Quaker Bridge Mall. The service would operate non-stop between the South Brunswick P&R lot and Sarnoff at which point the service would make local station stops serving the east side of U.S. Route 1.

BRT Route 4 – Local service between the southern P&R lot off of I-95 and Princeton serving the east side of U.S. Route 1. Upon reaching Princeton the service would follow the current NJ TRANSIT Route 605 alignment.

During midday hours BRT Route 4 would travel in a loop between Quaker Bridge and Mercer Malls to the south and Carnegie Center and Market Fair to the north connecting the east and west sides of U.S. Route 1.

BRT Service Concept 2 – Noting the complexity and high costs of BRT Service Concept 1, a second option, with a more streamlined approach to service was developed (see Figure ES-6). The service is comprised of four mainline BRT routes:

BRT Route 1 – Local service between the southern P&R lot off of I-295 and the South Brunswick P&R lot. This service would serve both the east and west side of U.S. Route 1, crossing U.S. Route 1 via College Road to serve the Forrestal Village and proposed Nursery Center.

BRT Route 2 – Local service between the BRT station (anticipated transfer center) located near the Quaker Bridge Mall and the Forrestal Village serving west side of U.S. Route 1 (Same as BRT Service Concept 1).

BRT Route 3 – Express service, operating during the peak-period only, between the southern P&R lot and the South Brunswick P&R lot, making local stops only at the stations between Carnegie Center South and FMC.

BRT Route 4 – Local service between the southern P&R lot off of I-95 and Princeton, serving the east side of U.S. Route 1. Upon reaching Princeton the service would follow the current NJ TRANSIT Route 605 alignment (Same as BRT Service Concept 1).

During midday hours BRT Route 4 would travel in a loop serving all stations between Quaker Bridge and Mercer Malls to the south and Carnegie Center and Market Fair to the north connecting the east and west sides of U.S. Route 1 (Same as BRT Service Concept 1).

STV Incorporated ES-9 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Figure ES-6: Final BRT Service Concept 2

West Trenton Montgomery Twp.

4 (E)

Bucks County I-95 P&R Princeton Boro Princeton Shopping Center

New Jersey Princeton University Ewing I-95 P&R

College Forrestal Village Of NJ Rider 3 (B) Center Nursery Mercer Mall Mercer Dr Emmons Nassau Park Nassau Market Fair Market Univ. 2,4 Canal Pointe PU Development New 2 Proposed South North Brunswick Brunswick

Transfer Center Transfer 4 2 Brunswick P&R 4 3 Trenton Hamilton

East 1 Rail Rail 1 ,3 d 1,3,4 a Carnegie Center o R FMC College Wyeth Sarnoff Office Park s/ East Brunswick yer ch M n Proposed

1 (A) Quaker Bridge 1 South Brunswick BristonMerrill Ly Rail Station New Jersey 1 Princeton Junction BRT Route 1 Dinky Track I-295 P&R Northeast Corridor 2 BRT Route 2 Road 3 Northeast BRT Route 3 Corridor (express) Hamilton Plainsboro Exclusive BRT 4 West BRT Route 4 Guideway Windsor (mid-day only) Core BRT Station Feeder Route Other Station Mercer County Community NJ Turnpike Park-and-Ride Twin Rivers College Exit 8A Hamilton Not to scale Market Place

STV Incorporated ES-10 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

BRT Service Concept 3 – This BRT service concept was based off of BRT Service Concept 2 with the addition of extra BRT service along the Dinky right-of-way. The additional BRT service along the Dinky right-of-way would replace the existing Dinky Line (see Figure ES-7). The service is comprised of the following BRT routes:

BRT Route 2 – Local service between the BRT station (anticipated transfer center) located near the Quaker Bridge Mall and the Forrestal Village, serving west side of U.S. Route 1 (Same as BRT Service Concept 1).

BRT Route 5 – Service that emulates the Dinky, traveling non-stop between Princeton and Princeton Junction, extending through downtown Princeton to the Princeton Shopping Center.

BRT Route 6 – Service between West Windsor and the Princeton Shopping Center via the Dinky right-of-way, making core station stops between Princeton Junction and Princeton.

BRT Route 7 – Service between the Twin Rivers P&R lot and Montgomery Township via the Dinky right-of-way, making core station stops between Princeton Junction and Princeton.

BRT Route 8(M) – Service between East Brunswick and Princeton. The service would operate non-stop between East Brunswick and the South Brunswick P&R lot at which point the service would make local station stops serving both the east and west side of U.S. Route 1, crossing U.S. Route 1 via College Road to serve the Forrestal Village and proposed Nursery Center.

STV Incorporated ES-11 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Figure ES-7: Final BRT Service Concept 3

West Trenton Montgomery Twp.

7 (E)

Bucks County I-95 P&R Princeton Boro Princeton Shopping Center

New Jersey Princeton University Ewing I-95 P&R 6, 7, 8, 5 College 2 Forrestal Village Of NJ Rider 3 (B) Nursery Center Mercer Mall Mercer Emmons Dr Nassau Park Market Fair Market Univ. 2,4 PointeCanal New PU Development Brunswick 2, 3, 8 Proposed South North Brunswick

Transfer Center Transfer 4 Brunswick P&R 4 8

Trenton Hamilton 1 East 1 8 (M) Rail Rail ,3 d 1,3,4 Carnegie Center a o R FMC College Wyeth Office Park Sarnoff Proposed East Brunswick 1 (A) Myers/ South Brunswick

Quaker Bridge 6, 7, 8, 5 1 ston Rail Station Bri Merrill Lynch 1 New Jersey BRT Route 1 Feeder Route Princeton Junction I-295 P&R 2 Road Northeast Corridor BRT Route 2 3 Northeast BRT Route 3 Corridor 6 (G) (express) 7 (F) Exclusive BRT Hamilton 4 Plainsboro BRT Route 4 Guideway West (mid-day loop) Core BRT Windsor 5 Station BRT Route 5 (express) Other Station Mercer County 6 Community NJ Turnpike BRT Route 6 Twin Rivers College Exit 8A 7 Hamilton BRT Route 7 Market Place 8 BRT Route 8 Not to scale

STV Incorporated ES-12 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

BRT Service Concept 4 – This BRT service concept was based off of BRT Service Concept 2 with the addition of extra BRT service along the Dinky right-of-way. The additional BRT service along the Dinky right-of-way would be in addition to the existing Dinky Line (see Figure ES-8). The service is comprised of the following BRT routes:

BRT Route 6 – Service between West Windsor and the Princeton Shopping Center via the Dinky right-of-way, making core station stops between Princeton Junction and Princeton (Same as BRT Service Concept 3).

BRT Route 7 – Service between the Twin Rivers P&R lot and Montgomery Township via the Dinky right-of-way, making core station stops between Princeton Junction and Princeton (Same as BRT Service Concept 3).

STV Incorporated ES-13 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Figure ES-8: Final BRT Service Concept 4

West Trenton Montgomery Twp.

7 (E)

Bucks County I-95 P&R Princeton Boro Princeton Shopping Center

New Jersey Princeton University Ewing I-95 P&R 6, 7, 8 College 2 Forrestal Village Of NJ Rider 3 (B) Nursery Center Mercer Mall Mercer Dr Emmons Nassau Park Nassau Market Fair Market Univ. 2,4 Pointe Canal New PU Development Brunswick 2, 3, 8 Proposed South North Brunswick Transfer Center 4 4 Brunswick P&R 8

Trenton Hamilton 1 East 1 8 (M) Rail Rail ,3 1,3,4 Carnegie Center ad o R FMC College Wyeth Sarnoff Office Park rs/ Proposed East Brunswick Mye ynch 1 (A) n L South Brunswick Quaker Bridge 6, 7, 8 o 1 st ll Rail Station Bri Merri 1 New Jersey BRT Route 1 Feeder Route I-295 P&R Princeton Junction 2 Dinky Track Northeast Corridor BRT Route 2 3 Road BRT Route 3 Northeast 6 (G) (express) 7 (F) Corridor Hamilton 4 Plainsboro BRT Route 4 Exclusive BRT West (mid-day loop) Guideway Windsor 6 Core BRT BRT Route 6 Station 7 Mercer County BRT Route 7 Other Station NJ Turnpike Community 8 Twin Rivers Exit 8A BRT Route 8 Hamilton College Market Place

STV Incorporated ES-14 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Feeder Bus Network: The feeder bus network was established to support core BRT Service Concepts 1, 2, 3 and 4 previously presented. The feeder bus network is a combination of modified existing NJ TRANSIT bus routes and new bus routes as illustrated in Figure ES-9. The feeder bus network is comprised of the following routes:

Route A – Peak only service between the southern P&R lot off of I-295 and the South Brunswick P&R lot, serving the west side of U.S. Route 1 via Princeton Junction.

Route B – Off-peak only service between the southern P&R lot off of I-95 and the Quaker Bridge Mall.

Route C – Service between the Hamilton Market Place and Nassau Park via the Quaker Bridge/Mercer Malls. Formerly NJ TRANSIT bus Route 603.

Route D – Service between the Ewing and the southern P&R lots off of I-295/I-95 via the Trenton Rail Station and College of NJ. Formerly NJ TRANSIT bus Route 601.

Route E – Service between the downtown Trenton and Princeton Junction via Quaker Bridge Mall, Wyeth, Carnegie Center and the Office Park. Formerly NJ TRANSIT bus Route 600.

Route F – Service between Twin Rivers and Montgomery Township via Princeton Junction and Princeton. Formerly NJ TRANSIT bus Route 605.

Route G – Service between the Princeton North Shopping Center and Princeton Junction via West Windsor.

Route H – Service between the Plainsboro and Princeton Junction via U.S. Route 1.

Route I – Service between the P&R lot at NJ Turnpike, Exit 8A and Princeton Junction via the proposed Princeton Nursery, Forrestal Village, FMC, Sarnoff and the Office Park.

Route J – Service between the proposed South Brunswick Rail Station P&R lot and Princeton via the South Brunswick P&R lot.

Route K – Service between New Brunswick and Princeton Junction via the South Brunswick P&R lot, proposed Princeton Nursery, Forrestal Village, FMC, Sarnoff and the Office Park.

Route L – Service between East Brunswick and Princeton Junction via the South Brunswick P&R lot, proposed Princeton Nursery, Forrestal Village, FMC, Sarnoff and the Office Park.

Route M – Service between East Brunswick and the South Brunswick P&R lot. This route was incorporated into BRT Route 8 for all of the Final BRT service concepts.

STV Incorporated ES-15 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Figure ES-9: Feeder Bus Network

West Trenton Montgomery Twp.

F Princeton Oxford Valley Borough Mall P&R Princeton Shopping Center I-95/Route 332 P&R Princeton University New Jersey Ewing I-95 P&R

College Village Forrestal Of NJ B Nursery Center Rider R Nassau Park

Market FairMarket & Canal Pointe Mercer Mall Mercer Emmons Dr PU Development R P Univ. & d P R North 2 n 52 a e m Brunswick ut k o ee R B K

E Hamilton 1 Trenton Rail Rail L

s Carnegie Center a J E Wyeth FMC d Office Park Sarnoff rs/ oa e College R East Brunswick l My Quaker Bridge Proposed rill Lynch A Bristo er South Brunswick M Rail Station New Jersey I-295 P&R Northeast Corridor Princeton Junction H D I G Plainsboro F Hamilton C West Windsor NJ Turnpike Exit 8A Legend BRT Express Route Northeast Corridor Not to scale Twin Rivers Area P&R BRT Mid-day Route Exclusive BRT Guideway Existing NJ Transit Core BRT Station Bus Routes Road Other Station Dinky Track Park-and-Ride

STV Incorporated ES-16 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Park-and-Ride Facility Locations: Potential locations for park-and-ride facilities were established to capture commuters as early in their trips as possible (see Figure ES-10 and Figure ES-11). The BRT system would include P&R facilities at these locations: I-95 in Pennsylvania (Buck’s County): At the I-95/Route 332 interchange I-95 in New Jersey: In the median of I-95 between Route 31 and Federal City Road I-295 in New Jersey: Alongside of I-295, between Cypress Street and Kuser Road U.S. Route 1 in Trenton: In the vicinity of Spruce Street and Princeton Pike U.S Route 1 in South Brunswick: At the U.S. Route 1/Route 522 intersection NJ Turnpike at Exit 8A Figure ES-10: Southern Park-and-Ride Locations

Transfer Center

New Jersey I-95 New Jersey I-95 Park-and-Ride (alternate) Park-and-Ride Lot at NJ Route 31 Rte 31/Federal City Rd. in Median

New Jersey I-295 Pennsylvania I-95 Park-and-Ride (alternate) Park-and-Ride Lot AMC Movie Theater Lower Makefield

Trenton Park-and-Ride Lot Pennsylvania I-95 Park-and-Ride Lot R at Route 332 D O el D aw I a R re R R iv O er C T S A E H T R O New Jersey I-295 N Park-and-Ride Lot at Cypress St/Cooper Rd I

STV Incorporated ES-17 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Figure ES-11: Northern Park-and-Ride Location

ut1

U.S. Route 1 South Brunswick Park-and-Ride Lot

522 R O ID R R O C T S A E H T R ut1 O N

STV Incorporated ES-18 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

BRT GUIDEWAY OPTIONS

U.S. Route 1 is heavily congested with automobile traffic during the peak hours. In order to establish an alternative to the automobile the BRT must operate as a fast and reliable service, therefore, an alignment was created that would directly connect to the major activity centers and only allow access to BRT and supporting feeder route buses, separating the buses from the automobile congestion on U.S. Route 1.

Based on the location of the activity centers and the design of the BRT service concepts, two primary BRT guideways were developed, one on the east side and one on the west side of U.S. Route 1. East-west connections were added at key locations between the east and west sides.

Several guideway alignment options were developed and evaluated based on impacts on travel times, environmental concerns, coordination with planned development and access to activity centers. The evaluation led to the selection of the preferred alignment that is shown in Figure ES-12 through Figure ES-14.

The proposed BRT alignment would be coordinated with the NJDOT Penns Neck Area EIS improvements along U.S. Route 1 and at the Princeton Junction Station, where the Vaughn Drive extension would connect Alexander Road and County Route 571. The BRT guideway was also planned in coordination with the West Windsor Princeton Junction Station Area Vision Plan (June 2005), which proposed an approach for long term change around the station.

STV Incorporated ES-19 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Figure ES-12: Final BRT Guideway (Map 1 of 3)

õÅ583 treet rcer S Route 1 Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis d Me a D BRT Guideway with Dinky as is o e n d R d a a Proposed BRT Exclusive Guideway Northeast Corridor andL Station a a L o wrence e o n R i r R n Exclusive Guideway along Existing Road - Single Lane e Dinky and Station L k e a e u l e d Springd Exclusive Guideway along Existing Road - One Lane Each Way Q l Stream c a n O d i Golf C Two-Way Travel in Mixed Traffic Lake or River v g o n r i Exclusive Guideway through Undeveloped Land - Single Lane r Penn's Neck & Vaughn Drive Redesign P p

Exclusive Guideway through Undeveloped Land - One Lane Each Way Curb Lines and Lane Edges S

Alignment on Planned Road Lane Markings ad o Exclusive Guideway on Structure - Single Lane Road Rerouting (for BRT) R õÅ583 r e Exclusive Guideway on Structure - One Lane Each Way k a u One-Way Travel in Mixed Traffic Q

Alternate Alignment e I !( BR T Stat ion n Pik Princeton Twp. 1,500ceto 750 !( BR T P+R Stat ion Prin Fe et Year 2002 Aerial Photographs - obtained from the New Jersey Image Warehouse

ok Stony Bro Princeton Pike Corporate Center

95 §¨¦ Princeton al an Country Club n C rita !( Nassau Park Canal Pointe Canal Pointe Ra

d N an Mercer Mall Nassau South North are !( a !( !( law s Emmons Drive

e e D Park s !( !(

a Canal Pointe Blvd

D Market Fair Mall

a Mercer s

r n West Windso k r

M B all m

l Market Fair

d ut1 E The Square Carnegie Center at West Industrial Park Quaker Carnegie Center Drive !( Windsor Carnegie N Bridg e Palladium !( Greenview d Mall a U Quaker o Carnegie South Wyeth Corporate Cen R !( ter !( Bridge w Mall o Carnegie Center Me d !( adowlane d a

G a rovers M e ill Ro o ad Wyeth Apartments M

Littl r e e Bea r d Broo k n

a 295 Cl x §¨¦ a e r l ks v A ille R oa D d u c k Bear Bro P ok Road Al o n d d a R u o n R

e g d Pr i r B Me r e V W a k est Windsor u a õÅ638 g u h Q

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

Village West Windsor Square Municipal

STV Incorporated ES-20 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Figure ES-13: Final BRT Guideway (Map 2 of 3)

y Princeton k !( õÅ526 c o Dinky Station ! Princeton University R

y pringdale ighwa oln H Golf Club L Linc d i ncol ie a n Hig rneg o h a way ke C R La

o t

n D i i t v h L e i inc s s o e ln i H a r Prospect Avenue o igh t w n ay W S S t n r o e e s i t r r

H e e a th c rnegi o Ca te e B ro Lak o k

I N R i KY d g e R o Princeton ad

Forrestal P Princeton Nursery ro !( p Village o s e !( d Princeton Forrestal Village L !( o o Nursery Future Princeton Development p R If the Penn's Neck area is not rebuilt, o the BRT would operate in mixed traffic a on the existing roads in this area. Homewood d Suites ut1 Ca Princeton mpus Robert Wood r d North Corporate Dow Jones a FMC at o !( Johnson R Forrestal Center Corporate n Foundation io n James Forrestal Center Headquarters negie North U FMC Chemical

Campus ( Research and P !( Sarnoff r !( o R College Road North University p e Development s o s e a Prin Square David Sarnoff e ceton S d r c c !( Dinky Office Parks Research C u E h Business d enter d x W

a d herst t Wyeth-Am e

o e a Park n r y

R d s s Laboratories

a r M i o

o i n

d l R l )

n R

n R a o

o x a T t P

e d .

g l Bristol-Myers

estal 9 a Princeton Forr

i i R k 2 oo n esea

h r s B Squibb Center ( s r b a Firmenich P a e o r B ch R e r W tl A t o O lexander Li W

R ay P Park o O a !( !( S d Bristol Myers Squibb/ Merrill Lynch t s E

Merrill a D E College Road Center d ) Princeton a Lynch o R Metro Park e g e V ll au o gh Plainsbo C n ro D ri !( ve College Road South

!( ! NORTHEAST CORRIDOR Princeton Junction Princeton Junction Station

STV Incorporated ES-21 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Figure ES-14: Final BRT Guideway (Map 3 of 3)

!(27

unty t Co rse ty ome oun S ex C dles Mid

õÅ522 Pr inc et on W R a a lk y B m ou o lev n a d rd R o a d

Dow Jones Potential Connection with (! North Brunswick BRT ut1 (! Northern Park-and-Ride d ones oa r R jo orate Ma uarters d a o R

w õÅ522 e N

ne R a id L mherst g e R o ts tories ad South Brunswick ou

e r i a l

a y

( P N ro ort h p U o m s b e er d la ) nd W a M y a jo r R o a d sed opo ick Pr nsw Bru e uth Sit So tion Sta NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

d a o R

STV Incorporated ES-22 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

DINKY OPTIONS

A range of rail technology options were considered during this study. Early in the study effort light rail was considered and eliminated due to the inefficiencies and operating difficulty in applying a unique technology to such a short rail line. Five options were selected for consideration for the future form of the Dinky that varied in the mode of the dinky (rail or BRT), the guideway design (BRT guideway, single track, double track), the number of vehicles used to operate the service, and the maximum possible frequency of the service. Through a qualitative evaluation, the five preliminary Dinky options were reduced to three final options. The three final Dinky options were later combined with the final BRT service concepts and the BRT guideway to form complete network alternatives. The five original Dinky options, including a No- Build option, were defined as follows:

No-Build Option The current operation consists of one train, on a 2.78 mile single track, traveling between the Princeton and Princeton Junction stations. The current operation has a five-minute running time between stations with a five-minute layover period at each station for maintenance checks. This results in a minimum twenty-minute interval between trains (headway).

Dinky Option 1 - Replacement of the Dinky Line with BRT This option would replace the existing single track Dinky with a paved bi-directional cartway for a BRT system. The BRT operation for this option would consist of a ten-minute headway between the Princeton and Princeton Junction stations.

Dinky Option 2 - Dinky Line Including a BRT System This option consists of a paved bi-directional cartway for a BRT system adjacent to the existing Dinky Line. The Dinky would retain its existing schedule with twenty-minute headways. A cartway next to the Dinky Line would allow for BRT buses to make through movements to serve between Lawrence and South Brunswick.

Dinky Option 3 - Double Track Dinky with Single Track into Stations This option consists of a single track into each station starting approximately 1000 feet prior to each station and double track throughout the rest of the Dinky corridor. This would allow for more than one train to operate in the corridor at the same time, increasing service between Princeton Junction and Princeton to a headway of approximately ten-minutes.

Dinky Option 4 - Double Track Dinky Line with New Platforms This option consists of double track for the entire length of the Dinky corridor. This would allow two trains to operate independently of each other between Princeton and Princeton Junction resulting in a combined ten-minute headway.

Dinky Option 5 - Single Track Dinky Line with Double Track into Each Station This option consists of double track into each station starting approximately 1000 feet prior to each station and single track throughout the rest of the Dinky corridor. This would allow for a three-train operation traveling between Princeton and Princeton Junction resulting in a thirteen- minute headway.

Summary of Dinky Options Dinky Options 1, 2 and 4 warrant further review for the Dinky corridor. Dinky Option 1 allowed the BRT the flexibility to extend beyond the Dinky corridor, allowing passengers a one seat ride

STV Incorporated ES-23 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report to destinations within the entire BRT network. Dinky Option 2 allowed the same flexibility as Dinky Option 1, but without the removal of the existing, functional Dinky service. Dinky Option 4 allowed two Dinky trains to operate independently of each other, allowing a higher percentage of Dinky trains the ability to meet Northeast Corridor trains at Princeton Junction.

NETWORK ALTERNATIVES

The network alternatives are a combination of several different components developed in the BRT service concepts including the NJ TRANSIT bus and feeder bus network, the location of P&R facilities, the BRT guideway and the Dinky options (see Table ES-3). A No-Build Alternative was also developed as a basis for comparison. Table ES-4 summarizes attributes for each of the network alternatives.

Each network alternative was reviewed based on three key attributes:

Ridership Ridership for the network alternatives was forecasted using a combination of the DVRPC travel demand model, the North Jersey Regional Transportation Model (NJRTM) and the NJ Transit Demand Forecasting Model (NJTDFM).

Model runs for each alternative were based on input of the proposed network alternative, including the physical alignment, location of stops, locations of P&R lots, distance and travel time (including dwell time) between stops, frequency of each route and service pattern (local, express) of each route. The NJTDFM was run first to determine trips with an origin or destination north of New Brunswick. Output from that model was transferred to the DVRPC model prior to transit assignment so that a combined report of transit ridership could be generated.

Operating and Maintenance Costs Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the BRT and other bus services were based on an O&M cost model created to represent O&M costs and service levels of the existing NJ TRANSIT system. O&M costs for rail service in the Dinky options were developed using a model provided by NJ TRANSIT.

Capital Costs Capital cost estimates for this study were based on an application of unit costs for items in the Federal Transit Administration’s cost categories to the quantity in which they occur in the proposed system. The categories include guideway, track work, maintenance facility/shops/yard, systems, stations, vehicles, right-of-way, contingency and soft costs.

The NJDOT’s Construction Cost Estimation Preparation Manual for Preliminary Design (CCEPMPD) was used to determine unit costs for BRT guideway sections.

Costs for right-of-way were based on average values for commercial property, as supplied by the townships of Lawrence, Princeton, West Windsor, Plainsboro and South Brunswick. A weighted average was used to account for variations in property value by township and the percentage of the guideway that would be in each township.

STV Incorporated ES-24 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Table ES-3: Composition of Network Alternatives Network Alternative Final BRT Service Concept Final Dinky Option

No-Build No-Build Alternative None Includes selected improvements remains “as-is”

Network Alternative 1 Final BRT Service Concept 11 Final Dinky Option 2a2 BRT Service Concept 1 Five BRT routes shift Dinky to allow for BRT Guideway with Dinky Alongside

Network Alternative 2a Final Dinky Option 2a2 BRT Service Concept 2 shift Dinky to allow for BRT Guideway with Dinky Alongside 1 Final BRT Service Concept 2 2 Network Alternative 2b Four BRT Routes Final Dinky Option 2b shift Dinky and double-track to increase BRT Service Concept 2 service frequency with upgraded Dinky Alongside (incl. at stations) 2 Network Alternative 3a Final Dinky Option 2a shift Dinky to allow for BRT Guideway BRT Service Concept 3 and stop Dinky operation after BRT Operate Dinky until BRT opens opens Final BRT Service Concept 31 Four BRT Routes plus Network Alternative 3b Final Dinky Option 1 BRT Service Concept 3 Four BRT Routes replacing the Dinky remove Dinky to replace with BRT Remove Dinky for Construction of BRT (Alternative 3c also includes two additional Bucks Network Alternative 3c County park-and-ride lots) BRT Service Concept 3 plus two additional Final Dinky Option 1 Buck’s County park-and-rides, remove Dinky to replace with BRT Remove Dinky for Construction of BRT

Network Alternative 4a Final Dinky Option 2a2 BRT Service Concept 3 shift Dinky to allow for BRT Guideway with Dinky Alongside Final BRT Service Concept 41 Network Alternative 4b Four BRT Routes plus Final Dinky Option 2b2 BRT Service Concept 3 Three BRT Routes supplementing the Dinky shift Dinky and double-track to improve with upgraded Dinky Alongside service frequency (incl. at stations) (Alternative 4c also includes two additional Bucks Network Alternative 4c County park-and-ride lots) 2 BRT Service Concept 3 (modified) Final Dinky Option 2a with Dinky Alongside, plus two additional shift Dinky to allow for BRT Guideway Buck’s County park-and-rides

Network Alternative 5 Final Dinky Option 4 None double-track to improve service Dinky Upgrade (No BRT) frequency (incl. at stations) 1 The same feeder bus network and P&R facilities are used in all of the Final BRT Service Concepts. 2 The original Dinky Option 2 was split into Dinky Option 2a and Dinky Option 2b. Dinky Option 2a is the original Dinky Option 2 with the BRT alongside of the existing Dinky. Dinky Option 2b is a combination of Dinky Option 2 and Dinky Option 4 with the BRT alongside a double track Dinky.

STV Incorporated ES-25 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Table ES-4: Network Alternatives – Summary of Attributes Net Annual Network Alternative BRT Service Concept – Final Final Dinky Option Ridership Capital Cost (Daily Boardings) O&M Cost (2004 dollars) (2004 dollars) No-Build No-Build Alternative None 20,400 $0.0 m $0.0 m Includes selected improvements remains “as-is” Network Alternative 1 BRT Service Concept 11 Dinky Option 2a2 BRT Service Concept 1 41,000 $20.8 m $ 604.3 m Five BRT routes shift Dinky to allow for BRT Guideway with Dinky Alongside Network Alternative 2a Dinky Option 2a2 BRT Service Concept 2 40,800 $20.0 m $ 600.8 m shift Dinky to allow for BRT Guideway with Dinky Alongside BRT Service Concept 21 Network Alternative 2b Four BRT Routes Dinky Option 2b2 BRT Service Concept 2 shift Dinky and double-track (incl. at 41,100 $23.0 m $ 650.0 m with upgraded Dinky Alongside stations) 2 Network Alternative 3a Dinky Option 2a shift Dinky to allow for BRT Guideway BRT Service Concept 3 44,100 $22.3 m $ 637.8 m and stop Dinky operation after BRT Operate Dinky until BRT opens 1 BRT Service Concept 3 opens Four BRT Routes plus Network Alternative 3b Four BRT Routes replacing the Dinky Dinky Option 1 44,100 $22.3 m $ 618.6 m BRT Service Concept 3 remove Dinky to replace with BRT Remove Dinky for Construction of BRT (Alternative 3c also includes two additional Network Alternative 3c Bucks County park-and-ride lots) Dinky Option 1 BRT Service Concept 3 plus two 45,200 $22.4 m $ 635.6 m additional Buck’s County park-and-rides, remove Dinky to replace with BRT Remove Dinky for Construction of BRT Network Alternative 4a Dinky Option 2a2 42,600 $24.1 m $ 637.5 m BRT Service Concept 3 shift Dinky to allow for BRT Guideway with Dinky Alongside BRT Service Concept 41 Network Alternative 4b Four BRT Routes plus Dinky Option 2b2 BRT Service Concept 3 Three BRT Routes supplementing the Dinky shift Dinky and double-track (incl. at 42,900 $27.1 m $ 686.8 m with upgraded Dinky Alongside stations) Network Alternative 4c (Alternative 4c also includes two additional Bucks County park-and-ride lots) 2 Dinky Option 2a BRT Service Concept 3 (modified) 43,500 $25.5 m $ 668.3 m with Dinky Alongside, plus two shift Dinky to allow for BRT Guideway additional Buck’s County park-and-rides Network Alternative 5 Dinky Option 4 None Upgrade to Double Track (incl. at 20,700 $3.0 m $ 47.9 m Dinky Upgrade (No BRT) stations) 1 The same feeder bus network and P&R facilities are used in all of the Final BRT Service Concepts. 2 The original Dinky Option 2 was split into Dinky Option 2a and Dinky Option 2b. Dinky Option 2a is the original Dinky Option 2 with the BRT alongside of the existing Dinky. Dinky Option 2b is a combination of Dinky Option 2 and Dinky Option 4 with the BRT alongside a double track Dinky.

STV Incorporated ES-26 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDY RESULTS

The following is a listing of the key study results:

Ten network alternatives representing potential service options for a regional BRT system were analyzed.

Analysis of these network alternatives was based upon estimates of ridership, capital cost and net annual operating and maintenance cost. This resulted in narrowing the list to two network combinations, Alternatives 3c and 4c.

The BRT service and guideway elements of Alternatives 3c and 4c are very similar. The essential difference between them is the option for retaining or possibly improving the Princeton Branch “Dinky” rail service along with a new BRT system (Alternative 4c), versus the replacement of the Princeton Branch “Dinky” rail service by BRT service (Alternative 3c). In Alternative 3c the Princeton Branch alignment becomes one of many links of a large regional BRT system.

A BRT system would add 17,000 to 19,000 average weekday trips to the transit system in the Route 1 corridor while reducing person trips by auto by 11,000 to 12,000. Within the “cordon boundary” of the Route 1 corridor, BRT ridership would be 14,755 per average weekday (see Table ES-5 and Figure ES-15).

The BRT would increase the percent of work trips using transit from a range of 2 to 4% to a range of 5 to 9% in the core of the study area (West Windsor, Plainsboro, Princeton Township and Princeton Borough).

BRT ridership would be achieved if commercial and residential development are designed or improved to include and be oriented to the BRT alignment and stations

Ridership forecasts indicate that area jobs along the core of the BRT will increase by 40% for a total of 100,000 jobs

BRT project would cost in the $600 to $700 million range to implement if advanced at one time. However, the system can be implemented in segments as growth and development occur. In addition, as private or public infrastructure are planned and constructed, BRT system segments can be integrated into projects.

The BRT project is contained in the DVRPC fiscally constrained long-range plan and is included as a “project under study“ in the NJTPA Access and Mobility Plan for the Year 2030.

STV Incorporated ES-27 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Table ES-5: Ridership Summary

Average Reduction in Reduction in Regional BRT Core Route 1 BRT Weekday Year Description of Service Person Trips by Vehicle Miles of Routes Ridership Ridership Regional Bus Auto Travel by Auto Ridership

2004 Existing Service NA NA 14,000 NA NA

No Build Alternative Added frequency to No Reduction as No Reduction as 2025 existing routes to NA NA 26,600 traffic is projected VMT is projected accommodate growth in to grow by 55%* to grow by 118%* ridership

BRT Alternative 4c 2025 30,100 14,755 43,500 11,100 368,000 Dinky Retained

* Estimated for 2020

STV Incorporated ES-28 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Figure ES-15: BRT Alternative 4C – Daily 2025 Core Area Bus Trips

Hillsborough

20 6 •Via RteMilltown 1– 2,461 TripsSayreville HUNTERDON North Brunswick De la war e South River Franklin East Amwell SOMERSET 18 Mo ntg omer y Town shi p 27 East Brunswic k 533 1 20 2 518 •Via 206– 668 Trips518 Rocky Hill

Hopewell Boro 13 0 Spotswood Old Bridge 9 522 South Brunswic k Helmetta 522 T We st Amwell Princeton Twp J N

Wyet h -Aye rs t r o d ri Princeton Prince ton Co rp. Ct r. r e 92 PMIDDLESEX o out r 27 C R o p Boro os e t d s 535 a Fo r re sta l Ce nt er e h Hopewell Twp rt Jamesburg Princeton University o T h N Ma rl bo r o To wn shi p 31 e FM C Plainsboro D Me rr ill Ly nc h in •Local Trips- 583 ky 569 Bri sto l- My er s Sq u ibb Sa r no ff C o rp o ra ti o n e k 571 4,944 Trips i MERCER Princeton Market Fair p Pennington n r u T Carne gi e 533 Prin cet on N Cen te r E J W Ju ncti on Cranbury Manalapan N P J 546 Lawrence E E N R N S S E 1 Y Y L Monroe V 571 A 535 N Mercer Mall IA Princeton Pike 13 0 Englishtown Cor p. Ce nte r 526 95 29 5 Qu ake rb r id ge •Via I-95– 1,631 Trips Mall Rider Unive rs ity 133

583 West Windsor Ewing •Via 571– 1,735 Trips Hightstown 33 West T renton 20 6

BUCKS 3 Me rc er Co m munity College R 31 Legend 571 A 1 T BUS P Ha m il to n 535 E East Windsor •Via Rte 1–S 1,727 Trips 539 Primary study area

Yardl ey 526 Service market area 29 33 33 Trenton 533 13 0 33 Activity center Wa shi ng ton 95 Mi ll stone Trenton •Via I-295– 1,589 Trips Ro ose vel t 95 Hamilton Commuter rail station 526 129 1 Commuter rail line 95 195

7 500-level county road R 13 0 A T 29 MONMOUTH P E Interstate/US/State highway S Allentown 195 Municipal boundary Total Bus Trips into Core Area- 9,811 Upper Freehold County boundary Total Bus Trips Within Core Area- 4,944 Bordentown NJTPA/DVRPC boundary TOTAL CORE AREA BUS TRIPS- 14,755 Chesterfield BURLINGTON OCEAN 202Miles

Source: ESRI, Inc., NJTPA and DVRPC. N

STV Incorporated ES-29 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

Next Steps that could be taken by NJ TRANSIT if funds were available

The following provides guidance on the next steps that could be taken to advance segments of the proposed Route 1 BRT system in phases:

A. NJDOT Route 1 Regional Growth Strategy Study:

Utilize BRT system concept in NJDOT regional growth strategy study

BRT can be part of the mobility improvement plan that supports regional growth and provides a transit alternative to roadway congestion

NJDOT study team, with NJ TRANSIT support, should work closely with each municipality to devise a growth and transportation strategy that recognizes and incorporates the BRT system into local plans

Work with municipalities to formally adopt BRT system in their transportation and land use plans; including in municipal master plans

B. Identify and work to implement discrete BRT system elements, including:

1. Consider opportunities for improving service on existing NJ TRANSIT bus routes in the Route 1 corridor to accommodate area growth.

2. Develop a marketing and education plan that would establish a “brand” and identification for the BRT system that would be applied as services and facilities are developed.

3. Identify guideway segments and related BRT services that would incrementally implement the BRT system from initial segments to full build-out. Examples can include establishing a pre-BRT service to supplement the Dinky (“Dinky Bus”) between Princeton and Princeton Junction; consider coordination with potential County Route 571 bus service; and enhance bus service in residential areas such as Plainsboro.

4. Identify opportunities to establish park-ride facilities in coordination with existing and future bus services including BRT.

o Establish a P&R facility in East Windsor with bus service between Princeton and East Windsor along County Route 571. In addition, coordinate with roadway improvements currently being planned along the County Route 571 corridor to include bus treatments.

o Establish P&R facilities along I-95 with bus service between Bucks County and the Route 1 corridor.

o Establish a P&R facility in South Brunswick with bus service between South Brunswick and core Route 1 corridor destinations.

STV Incorporated ES-30 February, 2006 Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT Alternatives Analysis Final Report

5. Continue coordination with NJDOT on the following projects with the intent of facilitating BRT:

o Penn’s Neck Area EIS Improvements

o Millstone River Bridge Replacement Project

6. Continue coordination with DRJTBC on the Scudder Falls Bridge Replacement Project to establish BRT treatments.

7. Coordinate with Route 1 corridor development such as expansion of Quaker Bridge Mall and Forrestal Center to establish BRT stations and guideway.

8. Coordinate with both the Princeton Medical Center and the Capital Health System relocation proposals.

9. Encourage and assist municipalities with preserving right-of-way for the future implementation.

10. Pursue environmental analysis as appropriate for new facilities, segments or scenarios associated with the BRT system.

STV Incorporated ES-31 February, 2006