DOCSLIB.ORG

Task Force Summary Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Task Force Summary Report TASK FORCE SUMMARY REPORT Prepared for: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority By: Urban Engineers, Inc. In association with: STV, Inc. AECOM Consulting Transportation Group Simone Collins Landscape Architecture NOVEMBER 2007 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROJECT IMPEDIMENTS ..................................................................................................... 2 1.3 FORMATION OF TASK FORCE ............................................................................................. 3 2 PRELIMINARY SCREENING AND EVALUATIONS ...................................................................... 3 2.1 TASK FORCE SELECTION OF PREFERRED LONG RANGE PROJECT ....................................... 3 2.2 SCHUYLKILL VALLEY RAIL ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 6 3 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 8 3.1 STEP ONE SCREENING ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 OPTIONS EVALUATED ..............................................................................................................9 3.1.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ............................................................................................................9 3.1.3 TASK FORCE SELECTION OF PROJECT OPTIONS ......................................................................11 3.2 STEP TWO USER BENEFITS ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 12 3.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................................12 3.2.2 CAPITAL COSTS ......................................................................................................................14 3.2.3 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS .................................................................................16 3.2.4 RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE......................................................................................................17 3.2.5 TRANSIT USER BENFITS ..........................................................................................................18 3.2.6 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ..........................................................................................................19 3.3 SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 20 3.3.1 OPTIONS EVALUATED ............................................................................................................20 3.3.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ..........................................................................................................21 4 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................. 22 4.1 RIDERSHIP FORECASTING................................................................................................ 23 4.1.1 THE DVRPC MODEL ................................................................................................................23 4.1.2 THE BERKS COUNTY MODEL ..................................................................................................23 4.2 PROJECT DEFINITION ...................................................................................................... 24 4.3 FUNDING OPTIONS .......................................................................................................... 24 Appendices : A. Schematic Diagrams of Initial Screening Alternatives B. Schematic Diagrams of Step One Options C. Schematic Diagrams of Step Two Options D. Schematic Diagrams of Segmentation Options Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force i List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 - MetroRail Service Plan................................................................................................. 2 Exhibit 2 - Initial Screening Alternatives ....................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 3 - Schematic Diagram of Selected Project Configuration ................................................ 5 Exhibit 4 - Summary of Schuylkill Valley Rail Assessment.......................................................... 7 Exhibit 5 - Step One Service Options............................................................................................. 9 Exhibit 6 - Summary of Step One Analysis Results..................................................................... 10 Exhibit 7 - Key Step One Observations........................................................................................ 11 Exhibit 8 - Summary of Step 2 Capital Costs............................................................................... 16 Exhibit 9 - Summary of Step 2 Annual Operating Costs.............................................................. 16 Exhibit 10 - Summary of Daily Boardings ................................................................................... 17 Exhibit 11 - Summary of User Benefit Results ............................................................................ 19 Exhibit 12 - Selected Rail Projects in Preliminary Engineering................................................... 19 Exhibit 13 - Summary of Segmentation Analysis Results............................................................ 22 Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force ii 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to describe and summarize the work performed for the Governor's Task Force, which was formed in 2004 to review and evaluate possible ways to restructure the Schuylkill Valley Metro project so that it could be implemented in a timely manner within funding constraints. 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY In 1998 the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and the Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA) completed a feasibility study to determine the viability of using existing rail rights-of-way for new rail passenger service in the Schuylkill Valley corridor from Center City Philadelphia to Reading. The study analyzed and identified a suitable alignment for rail service from Philadelphia to Reading and formulated a conceptual service plan that served as a basis for estimating ridership and capital and operating costs. The study identified two main options of providing rail service: a light rail alternative and a commuter rail alternative. Both were analyzed in detail, resulting in findings indicating that passenger rail service is a feasible alternative. Specifically, the study concluded that: it is possible to build and operate rail service in the corridor within existing rail rights-of-way; a significant number of riders would be attracted rivaling the most successful new systems in the United States; and that the cost to build the system as well as the operating costs of the service compare favorably with other systems and lines. Based on the results of the feasibility study, a Major Investment Study/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (MIS/DEIS) was begun in November of 1998. The documents were published in September of 2001, and the MIS/DEIS concluded with public hearings in March of 2002. The MIS/DEIS evaluated several combinations of conventional commuter rail and light rail, a hybrid mode known as MetroRail, and improved bus services. The hybrid mode, MetroRail, was selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The primary characteristics of MetroRail include the following: • Two services would operate: King of Prussia to Philadelphia via East Falls and Wyomissing to Philadelphia via Cynwyd • Both services would operate with 15 minute headways during peak periods and 30 minutes headways at other times • West of Norristown, MetroRail would operate within the existing Norfolk Southern Harrisburg Line right-of-way, but on separate tracks independent of main line freight train operations. • MetroRail vehicles would be electrically powered and would have rapid transit style doors on the sides of the cars. • All stations would have full length high level platforms • Fare collection would be proof of payment • Trains would be staffed by one person (the engineer). Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force A schematic diagram of the MetroRail service plan is shown in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 - MetroRail Service Plan MetroRail was forecast to accommodate 47,800 weekday boardings in 2020 and generate 27,000 new weekday trips to the public transportation systems in Reading and greater Philadelphia. Additional annual operating costs (in 1999 dollars) were estimated to be $30.4 million, and the estimated construction cost was $1.4 billion. Adjusted to 2005 dollars, those costs become $36.3 million and $ 1.7 billion respectively. 1.2 PROJECT IMPEDIMENTS In September 2001, a New Starts submittal request was made to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in accordance with the FTA's reporting requirements for projects seeking federal funds under the Section 5309 New Starts program. The report included a financial plan based on obtaining 80% of the capital funds from the federal Section 5309 program, and 20% from state and local sources. The total capital cost in year of expenditure dollars, taking into account
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RAILROAD COMMUNICATIONS Amtrak
    RAILROAD COMMUNICATIONS Amtrak Amtrak Police Department (APD) Frequency Plan Freq Input Chan Use Tone 161.295 R (160.365) A Amtrak Police Dispatch 71.9 161.295 R (160.365) B Amtrak Police Dispatch 100.0 161.295 R (160.365) C Amtrak Police Dispatch 114.8 161.295 R (160.365) D Amtrak Police Dispatch 131.8 161.295 R (160.365) E Amtrak Police Dispatch 156.7 161.295 R (160.365) F Amtrak Police Dispatch 94.8 161.295 R (160.365) G Amtrak Police Dispatch 192.8 161.295 R (160.365) H Amtrak Police Dispatch 107.2 161.205 (simplex) Amtrak Police Car-to-Car Primary 146.2 160.815 (simplex) Amtrak Police Car-to-Car Secondary 146.2 160.830 R (160.215) Amtrak Police CID 123.0 173.375 Amtrak Police On-Train Use 203.5 Amtrak Police Area Repeater Locations Chan Location A Wilmington, DE B Morrisville, PA C Philadelphia, PA D Gap, PA E Paoli, PA H Race Amtrak Police 10-Codes 10-0 Emergency Broadcast 10-21 Call By Telephone 10-1 Receiving Poorly 10-22 Disregard 10-2 Receiving Well 10-24 Alarm 10-3 Priority Service 10-26 Prepare to Copy 10-4 Affirmative 10-33 Does Not Conform to Regulation 10-5 Repeat Message 10-36 Time Check 10-6 Busy 10-41 Begin Tour of Duty 10-7 Out Of Service 10-45 Accident 10-8 Back In Service 10-47 Train Protection 10-10 Vehicle/Person Check 10-48 Vandalism 10-11 Request Additional APD Units 10-49 Passenger/Patron Assist 10-12 Request Supervisor 10-50 Disorderly 10-13 Request Local Jurisdiction Police 10-77 Estimated Time of Arrival 10-14 Request Ambulance or Rescue Squad 10-82 Hostage 10-15 Request Fire Department 10-88 Bomb Threat 10-16
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Reading: a Call to Action
    GREATER READING: A CALL TO ACTION To: The Greater Reading Community The Initiative for a Competitive Greater Reading (ICGR) was started by several local business leaders in response to a challenge – and a commitment of support – by local elected political leaders. These early initiators recognized and stated that they wanted something differ- ent, something real, and something that would make an impact toward creating an exciting and vibrant future for the Greater Reading region. Our approach was based on a simple principle – quality of life begins with a healthy economy. Put more simply, we needed to provide jobs for our residents. And, given our recent history of losing so many jobs, this required us to begin to think about doing some things differently. The good news is that we found a widespread interest in bringing about the necessary changes. What we found lacking initially, at least, was the necessary consensus on priorities. The Initiative for a Competitive Greater Reading set about to change this. Our region is unique in many ways. Sure, we have our problems and challenges. Who doesn’t? But we took account of these, dealt with them and focused most of our efforts on a very real set of opportunities. This we called “dealing with reality”. And “dealing with reality” implies, first, that we recognize things as they actually are, not as we wish they might be or as we might remember them. Among today’s realities, we all need to accept and come to terms with the following: - The region cannot be successful without a vibrant urban core.
    [Show full text]
  • Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options
    Advocacy Sustainability Partnerships Fort Washington Office Park Transportation Demand Management Plan Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options Prepared by GVF GVF July 2017 Contents Executive Summary and Key Findings ........................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 ArcMap Geocoding and Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 6 Travel Times Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 7 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Employee Commuter Survey Results ................................................................................................ 7 2. Office Park Companies Outreach Results ......................................................................................... 7 3. Office Park
    [Show full text]
  • Metrorail/Coconut Grove Connection Study Phase II Technical
    METRORAILICOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 & TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT Technical Memorandum Number 3 Prepared for Prepared by IIStB Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 METRORAIUCOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 Prepared for Prepared by BS'R Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY DESCRiPTION ........................................................................................ 1 3.0 TRANSIT MODES DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 4 3.1 ENHANCED BUS SERViCES ................................................................... 4 3.2 BUS RAPID TRANSIT .............................................................................. 5 3.3 TROLLEY BUS SERVICES ...................................................................... 6 3.4 SUSPENDED/CABLEWAY TRANSIT ...................................................... 7 3.5 AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSiT ....................................................... 7 3.6 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT .............................................................................. 8 3.7 HEAVY RAIL ............................................................................................. 8 3.8 MONORAIL
    [Show full text]
  • CHRISTOPHER PATTON, Plaintiff, V. SEPTA, Faye LM Moore, and Cecil
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : CHRISTOPHER PATTON, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : NO. 06-707 : SEPTA, Faye L. M. Moore, : and Cecil W. Bond Jr., : Defendants. : Memorandum and Order YOHN, J. January ___, 2007 Plaintiff Christopher Patton brings the instant action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq . (“ADA”); the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 955(a) (“PHRA”); and Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, against defendants Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”); SEPTA’s General Manager, Faye L. M. Moore; and SEPTA’s Assistant General Manager, Cecil W. Bond Jr. (collectively, “defendants”). Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, as to plaintiff’s claims under the PHRA against defendants Moore and Bond (Counts VII and VIII), plaintiff’s claims for violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Counts XI, XII, and XIII) and plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion will be granted in part and denied in part. 1 I. Factual and Procedural Background A. Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations Plaintiff was hired by SEPTA on December 8, 1997 to develop and direct its Capital and Long Range Planning Department. (Second Am. Compl. (“Compl.”) ¶ 14.) Defendant Moore, is the General Manager of SEPTA (id . at ¶¶ 6, 13); defendant Bond is the Assistant General Manager of SEPTA (id.
    [Show full text]
  • TRANSIT SYSTEM MAP Local Routes E
    Non-Metro Service 99 Woodlands Express operates three Park & 99 METRO System Sistema de METRO Ride lots with service to the Texas Medical W Center, Greenway Plaza and Downtown. To Kingwood P&R: (see Park & Ride information on reverse) H 255, 259 CALI DR A To Townsen P&R: HOLLOW TREE LN R Houston D 256, 257, 259 Northwest Y (see map on reverse) 86 SPRING R E Routes are color-coded based on service frequency during the midday and weekend periods: Medical F M D 91 60 Las rutas están coloradas por la frecuencia de servicio durante el mediodía y los fines de semana. Center 86 99 P&R E I H 45 M A P §¨¦ R E R D 15 minutes or better 20 or 30 minutes 60 minutes Weekday peak periods only T IA Y C L J FM 1960 V R 15 minutes o mejor 20 o 30 minutos 60 minutos Solo horas pico de días laborales E A D S L 99 T L E E R Y B ELLA BLVD D SPUR 184 FM 1960 LV R D 1ST ST S Lone Star Routes with two colors have variations in frequency (e.g. 15 / 30 minutes) on different segments as shown on the System Map. T A U College L E D Peak service is approximately 2.5 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the afternoon. Exact times will vary by route. B I N N 249 E 86 99 D E R R K ") LOUETTA RD EY RD E RICHEY W A RICH E RI E N K W S R L U S Rutas con dos colores (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Rider Guide / Guía De Pasajeros
    Updated 02/10/2019 Rider Guide / Guía de Pasajeros Stations / Estaciones Stations / Estaciones Northline Transit Center/HCC Theater District Melbourne/North Lindale Central Station Capitol Lindale Park Central Station Rusk Cavalcade Convention District Moody Park EaDo/Stadium Fulton/North Central Coffee Plant/Second Ward Quitman/Near Northside Lockwood/Eastwood Burnett Transit Center/Casa De Amigos Altic/Howard Hughes UH Downtown Cesar Chavez/67th St Preston Magnolia Park Transit Center Central Station Main l Transfer to Green or Purple Rail Lines (see map) Destination Signs / Letreros Direccionales Westbound – Central Station Capitol Eastbound – Central Station Rusk Eastbound Theater District to Magnolia Park Hacia el este Magnolia Park Main Street Square Bell Westbound Magnolia Park to Theater District Downtown Transit Center Hacia el oeste Theater District McGowen Ensemble/HCC Wheeler Transit Center Museum District Hermann Park/Rice U Stations / Estaciones Memorial Hermann Hospital/Houston Zoo Theater District Dryden/TMC Central Station Capitol TMC Transit Center Central Station Rusk Smith Lands Convention District Stadium Park/Astrodome EaDo/Stadium Fannin South Leeland/Third Ward Elgin/Third Ward Destination Signs / Letreros Direccionales TSU/UH Athletics District Northbound Fannin South to Northline/HCC UH South/University Oaks Hacia el norte Northline/HCC MacGregor Park/Martin Luther King, Jr. Southbound Northline/HCC to Fannin South Palm Center Transit Center Hacia el sur Fannin South Destination Signs / Letreros Direccionales Eastbound Theater District to Palm Center TC Hacia el este Palm Center Transit Center Westbound Palm Center TC to Theater District Hacia el oeste Theater District The Fare/Pasaje / Local Make Your Ride on METRORail Viaje en METRORail Rápido y Fare Type Full Fare* Discounted** Transfer*** Fast and Easy Fácil Tipo de Pasaje Pasaje Completo* Descontado** Transbordo*** 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase I Final Report and Recommended Plan 19 April 2012
    Phase I Final Report and Recommended Plan 19 April 2012 BPT Contract #4400006253 – MMOE2 Work Order #52 – Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority Deliverable #7 – Recommended Plan and Phase I Final Report Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority (Page Intentionally Left Blank) ______________________________________________________________________________ Final Report Page i Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Introduction 1 Service Area Profile 3 Population Trends 5 Population Density 11 Transportation-Disadvantaged Population Groups 14 Employment and Commuting 28 Major Travel Generators 34 Mobility Needs Assessment 40 Future Land Use 42 Existing Conditions 45 Service Description 45 Fare Structure 53 Demand Responsive Services 55 Physical Plant and Assets 55 Organization 57 Trends 59 Summary 64 Peer and Trend Analysis 65 Peer Selection 65 Overview of Analysis Techniques 67 Peer Group Analysis 70 Trend Analysis 80 Combination Analysis 88 Rider Survey 94 Survey Methodology 94 Survey Results 99 Resident Survey 113 Survey Methodology 113 Survey Results 114 ______________________________________________________________________________ Final Report Page ii Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page Community Leader Interviews 129 Community Leaders 129 Findings and Results 129 Staff Input 140 Process 140 Findings and Results 140 Route
    [Show full text]
  • City of Reading, PA, Comprehensive Plan, 2000
    City of Reading, Pennsylvania Comprehensive Plan 2000 JUNE 2000 Comprehensive Plan 2000 MAYOR JOSEPH D. EPPIHIMER, L1 READING CITY COUNCIL PAUL J. HOH, PRESIDENT VINCENT GAGLIARDO, JR. CASEY GANSTER JEFF WALTMAN CHARLES KNOLL JOHN ULRICH VAUGHN SPENCER CITY OF READING PLANNING COMMISSION - ,S. HENRY LESSIG, CHAIRMAN EDMUND PALKA, VICE-CHAIRMAN ERMETE J. RAFFAELLI, SECRETARY MIKE LAUTER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY STANLEY J. PAPADEMETRIOU CHARLES E. FAIRCHILD DONNA REED DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ERIC J. GALOSI, ACTING DIRECTOR June, 2000 -A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE S. Henry Lessig, Chairman Tom Brogan, Albright College Nelson deLeon, Reading Means Business Team Vito Ellison, Reading High Student Marcia Goodman Hinnershitz, Coalition for a Healthy Community William Hall, Member at Large Ted Jamula, Southern Middle School Principal Terry Knox-Ramseur, United Way of Berks County Tom McKeon, Berks County Industrial Development Authority Stanley Papademetriou, Reading Planning Commission Yvette Santiago, Human Relations Council Joseph Templin, Downtown Improvement District Sandra Wise, Police Athletic League COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF Fritz Rothermel, Senior Planner Karl Graybill, Planner Amy Woldt, Community Development Specialist Neil Nemeth, Community Development Specialist David Johnson, Business Resource Center Coordinator The Planning Commission wishes to extend its appreciation to the many individuals who participated in the preparation of this plan., but who are no longer employed by the City or hold public office. In particular the Commission would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following individuals: Emily Richardson, City Council, District #2. Michael Fiucci, City Council, District #6. Thomas A. Cookingham, Community Development Department Director Pamela Shupp Straub, Community Development Department Director Jennifer Gober, Planner John Weller, Community Planning & Development Division Manager The Task Forces and membership lists can be found in Appendix B.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Guidelines and Standards
    Service Guidelines and Standards Revised Summer 2015 Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority | Austin, Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Purpose 3 Overview 3 Update 3 Service Types 4 SERVICE GUIDELINES Density and Service Coverage 5 Land Use 6 Destinations and Activity Centers 6 Streets and Sidewalk Characteristics 7 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics 7 Route Directness 8 Route Deviation 9 Two-way Service 10 Branching and Short-Turns 10 Route Spacing 11 Route Length 11 Route Terminals 11 Service Span 12 Service Frequency 12 Bus Stop Spacing 13 Bus Stop Placement 13 Bus Stop Amenities 14 MetroRapid Stations vs. Bus Stops 15 Transit Centers and Park & Rides 15 SERVICE STANDARDS Schedule Reliability 19 Load Factors 19 Ridership Productivity and Cost-Effectiveness 20 Potential Corrective Actions 21 New and Altered Services 21 Service Change Process 22 APPENDIX A1: Map – Households without Access to an Automobile 24 A2: Map – Elderly Population Exceeding 10% of Total Population 25 A3: Map - Youth Population Exceeding 25% by Census Block 26 A4: Map – Household Income Below 50% of Regional Median 27 B1: Chart – Park & Ride Level of Service (LOS) Amenities 28 Service Guidelines and Standards INTRODUCTION Purpose The Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority connects people, jobs and communities by providing quality transportation choices. Service guidelines and standards reflect the goals and objectives of the Authority. Capital Metro Strategic Goals: 1) Provide a Great Customer Experience 2) Improve Business Practices 3) Demonstrate the Value of Public Transportation in an Active Community 4) Be a Regional Leader Overview Service guidelines provide a framework for the provision, design, and allocation of service. Service guidelines incorporate transit service planning factors including residential and employment density, land use, activity centers, street characteristics, and demographics.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Readins; Psnrisylvania
    City of Readins; Psnrisylvania JUNE 2000 c Ji -e Executive Summary THE PROCESS The City of Reading faces an uncertain and challenging future. It has reached the point in its growth and evolution when it is necessary to look at and plan for the future. Significant changes continue to occur at local and regional levels. Changing economics, shifting population bases, industrial plant closings, older housing stock and aging public facilities are headlines that appear in the news media every day. On the other hand, there are prospects for regional economic growth, collaboration and other potential opportunities that can be pursued. The current Master Plan for the City of Reading was adopted in 1969. There were efforts in 1980 and 1986 to develop an updated plan, but support was limited and final drafts were never completed. In January 1997, the Reading Planning Commission suggested to the Mayor and City Council that the Commission and appropriate Planning staff develop a new Comprehensive P!an and related Strategic Action Plan. The recommendation was endorsed by the P,dministrz- tion, and the Planning Commission identified several critical objectives to be included in the creation of the new plan. These have been summarized in the following Mission Statement: 3. “The Comprehensive Plan for Reading serves as a formally adopted statement of poli- cies regarding the City’s future. It provides a framework for public and private decisions that impact the prioritization of resource allocation, increases neighborhood and busi- 2 ness stability, and improves the overall quality of life. The document can also serve as a guide to address changing human and physical environments, strengthen community confidence and involvement, provide investment security, preserve and enhance the positive qualities of Reading, and reinforce the City as a regional hub.” In June 1997, City Council directed the Planning Commission and appropriate staff of the Community Development Department to prepare a Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Action Plan for Reading.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Summer Fall Update
    • PLEASE REMEMBER TO TAP YOUR SEPTA KEY Regional Rail CARD AT THE START OF YOUR TRIP AND TAP Welcome Back OFF AT THE END OF YOUR TRIP SEPTA KEY STUDENT FARE CARDS LAUNCH Service, Schedule & Fare THIS FALL Updates Summer & Fall 2021 SEPTA has been working to develop a Key Card for K-12 students eligible for transportation valid for the 2021-22 As you prepare to return to commuting - whether Academic Year. The program is managed by the School Districts through each School Administrator to determine working in the oce or attending school - there are travel rights, the number of daily trips allowed, and if the important travel information and tips we want to share: card is valid on Regional Rail OUTLYING STATION PARKING & STATION OFFICE A Student Key Cards issued without Regional Rail travel can AMENITIES be upgraded at one of the SEPTA Sales locations noted • Parking daily parking will continue to be free below. This upgrade must be done on a weekly basis and through the end of October will cost $10.30 for a 5-day week. For more details about • Payment of parking fees at station facilities student fares, contact the School Administrator. operated by Non-SEPTA entities remain in eect. Customers will be subject to parking tickets and STUDENT CARD FARE UPGRADE LOCATIONS other nes at these non-SEPTA facilities Regional Rail Station Sales Oces: • Suburban Station • All customer amenities – waiting area, restrooms, and • Amtrak 30th Street Station (SEPTA mezzanine level) Key Sales windows (as applicable) are now available at • Jeerson Station Sales Oces (A&B Section) outlying stops with open Station Oces • Temple Station • ALL Station Oces will reopen eective with the fall Additional SEPTA Sales Oces: schedule change • SEPTA Headquarters -1234 Market Street • 69th Street Transportation Center FARES • 15th Street • SEPTA has fully converted fare payments to the • Frankford Transportation Center SEPTA Key Cards.
    [Show full text]