Final Report Quakertown-Stony Creek Rail Restoration Study

submitted to the

Bucks County Planning Commission

submitted by Parsons Brinckerhoff Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in association with Norman Day Associates KKO and Associates

July 2000

Q UAKERTOWN-STONY C REEK R AIL R ESTORATION S TUDY

Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Study Overview...... i B. Development of Preliminary Alternatives...... vi C. Selection of the Lead Alternative ...... ix D. Refinement of the Lead Alternative...... ix E. Evaluation of the Lead Alternative ...... xv F. Conclusion ...... xvii

FINAL REPORT 1. Study Overview...... 1 1.1. Study Approach...... 1 1.2. Study Organization...... 2 2. Existing and Future Conditions in the Corridor ...... 2 2.1. Location and Limits of the Study Corridor ...... 2 2.2. Existing Study Corridor Conditions...... 5 2.3. Future Study Corridor Conditions...... 40 2.4. Preliminary Station Locations...... 46 3. Development of Preliminary Alternatives...... 49 3.1. Guidelines for Preliminary Alternatives Development ...... 49 3.2. Development of Preliminary Alternatives...... 49 3.3. Definition of Preliminary Alternatives...... 56 3.4. Initial Public Meetings...... 62 4. Screening of Preliminary Alternatives...... 62 4.1. Operating Analysis ...... 62 4.2. Engineering Requirements and Operating Characteristics ...... 69 4.3. Cost Assessment of Alternatives...... 77 5. Initial Patronage Assessment ...... 85 6. Selection of the Lead Alternative ...... 89 7. Refinement of the Lead Alternative...... 90 7.1. Definition of the Lead Alternative...... 90 7.2. Refinement of the Lead Alternative ...... 92 8. Evaluation of the Lead Alternative ...... 111 8.1. Follow-Up Public Meetings...... 112 8.2. Determination of Feasibility ...... 113 8.3. Next Steps...... 113 9. Conclusion ...... 114

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report

TABLE OF FIGURES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure A. Study Corridor Boundaries...... iii Figure B. Alternative 2 Alignment and Stops ...... xi Figure C. Alternatives 2A & 2B Alignment and Stops ...... xiii

FINAL REPORT Figure 1. Study Corridor Boundaries ...... 4 Figure 2. Study Corridor Demographics—1997 Estimated Population...... 7 Figure 3. Study Corridor Demographics—1997 Estimated Households...... 10 Figure 4. Study Corridor Demographics—1997 Estimated Employment...... 13 Figure 5A. Existing Land Use ...... 15 Figure 5B. Existing Land Use ...... 16 Figure 6A. 1993-1998 Proposed Residential Dwelling Units ...... 21 Figure 6B. 1993-1998 Proposed Residential Development Acreage ...... 22 Figure 6C. 1993-1998 Proposed Non-Residential Development Square Footage...... 23 Figure 6D. 1993-1998 Proposed Residential Development Acreage ...... 24 Figure 7. 1995 Undeveloped Land...... 27 Figure 8A. Current Zoning ...... 29 Figure 8B. Current Zoning ...... 30 Figure 9. Study Corridor Transit Services...... 33 Figure 10. Study Corridor Railroad Facilities ...... 35 Figure 11. SEPTA Allentown/Bethlehem Line Weekday Ridership ...... 36 Figure 12. Study Corridor Demographics—2020 Projected Population...... 43 Figure 13. Study Corridor Demographics—2020 Projected Households...... 44 Figure 14. Study Corridor Demographics—2020 Projected Employment...... 45 Figure 15. Preliminary Study Corridor Station Locations...... 48 Figure 16. Lansdale Track Alignments ...... 55 Figure 17. Norristown Track Alignments...... 55 Figure 18. Alternative 1: Diesel Shuttle Service...... 59 Figure 19. Alternative 2: Diesel Train Service to Philadelphia ...... 60 Figure 20. Alternative 3: Electric Train Service to Philadelphia & Diesel Light Rail Service to King of Prussia...... 61 Figure 21. Alternative 1 Time-Distance Diagram of Potential Service Schedule ...... 72 Figure 22. Alternative 2 Time-distance diagram of Potential Service Schedule ...... 73 Figure 23. Alternative 3A Time-Distance Diagram of Potential Service Schedule...... 75 Figure 24. Alternative 3B Time-Distance Diagram of Potential Service Schedule...... 76 Figure 25. Relative Patronage Affinities Scores...... 86 Figure 26. Alternative 2 Alignment and Stops...... 90 Figure 27. Alternatives 2A & 2B Alignment and Stops...... 96 Figure 28. Alternative 2 Time-Distance Diagram of Representative Weekday Schedule...... 100 Figure 29. Alternatives 2A & 2B Time-Distance Diagram of Representative Weekday Schedule...... 102

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report

TABLE OF TABLES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table A Preliminary Service Alternatives Capital Cost, Operating Cost and Patronage Assessments ...... ix Table B. Summary of Forecasted Ridership and Revenues...... xiv Table C. Summary of Cost Estimates...... xiv Table D. Comparative Operating Performance Measures...... xv FINAL REPORT Table 1. Study Corridor Demographics—Population...... 6 Table 2. Study Corridor Demographics—Households...... 9 Table 3. Study Corridor Demographics—Employment...... 12 Table 4. Study Corridor Development Activity ...... 20 Table 5. 1995 Undeveloped Land...... 26 Table 6. Reading Company Bethlehem Branch Train Service (1965)...... 34 Table 7. License Plate Survey Results at Colmar and Lansdale Stations ...... 37 Table 8. Stony Creek Branch Service (1934) ...... 39 Table 9. Preliminary Station Locations and Type...... 47 Table 10. Summary of Rail Service Alternatives...... 62 Table 11. Summary of Identified Stations by Line, Location & Alternative...... 66 Table 12. Anticipated Rail Modal Technologies by Alternative ...... 69 Table 13. Alternative 1 Running Time Calculations ...... 71 Table 14. Alternative 2 Running Time Calculations ...... 73 Table 15. Alternative 3A Running Time Calculations...... 74 Table 16. Alternative 3B Running Time Calculations...... 76 Table 17. Rolling Stock Assumptions...... 78 Table 18. Prospective Weekday Inbound Peak Boardings...... 78 Table 19. Rolling Stock Calculations...... 78 Table 20. Rolling Stock Unit Costs...... 79 Table 21. Assessment of Rolling Stock Acquisition Costs...... 79 Table 22. Standards for Passenger Rail Facilities ...... 79 Table 23. Representative Unit Costs for Key Infrastructural Elements...... 80 Table 24. Projected Rail Infrastructure Capital Work...... 81 Table 25. Estimated Rail Infrastructure Costs ...... 82 Table 26. Summary of Capital Cost Assessment...... 83 Table 27. Estimated Annual Operating Costs Detail...... 85 Table 28. Relative Patronage Affinities Scores...... 86 Table 29. Relative Patronage Affinity to Center City Destinations...... 87 Table 30. Relative Passenger Affinity to King of Prussia Destinations ...... 87 Table 31. Preliminary Service Alternatives Capital Cost, Operating Cost and Patronage Assessments...... 89 Table 32. Station-to-Station Distances and Running Times ...... 98 Table 33. Alternative 2 Representative Weekday Timetable ...... 99 Table 34. Alternatives 2A & 2B Representative Weekday Timetable ...... 100 Table 35. Alternative 2 Forecasted Weekday Ridership...... 104 Table 36. Alternatives 2A & 2B Forecasted Weekday Ridership...... 105 Table 37. Summary of Forecasted Ridership and Revenues ...... 105 Table 38. Summary of Capital Cost Estimates ...... 106 Table 39. Summary of Annual Operating Cost Estimates ...... 106 Table 40. Alternative 2 Detailed Capital Cost Estimate ...... 107 Table 41. Alternative 2A Detailed Capital Cost Estimate...... 108 Table 42. Alternative 2B Detailed Capital Cost Estimate...... 109 Table 43. Alternative 2 Detailed Annual Operating Cost Estimate...... 110 Table 44. Alternative 2A Detailed Annual Operating Cost Estimate ...... 110 Table 45. Alternative 2B Detailed Annual Operating Cost Estimate ...... 111 Table 46. Comparative Operating Performance Measures ...... 111

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates

Q UAKERTOWN-STONY C REEK R AIL R ESTORATION S TUDY

Executive Summary

A. STUDY OVERVIEW

At the turn of the 21st Century, there is renewed interest in finding alternatives to suburban sprawl and the utter dependency on automobiles associated with it. Part of the answer may lie in the revitalization of the older boroughs in Upper Bucks and Central Montgomery Counties. Once islands of small-scale urbanization amidst a sea of agricultural activity where residential and commercial activities merged on a pedestrian scale, the boroughs represented an attractive form of suburban lifestyle long before terms like “livable communities” and “transit oriented development” entered the planning lexicon. Another part of the answer may lie in restoration of off-street public transportation systems to link outlying communities with the greatest regional concentrations of employment in Center City Philadelphia and King of Prussia. With this concept in mind, the Bucks County Planning Commission (BCPC) initiated an investigation into the potential for restoring passenger rail service linking the Upper Bucks and North Penn communities with the Center City Philadelphia and King of Prussia employment centers. The purpose of the Quakertown-Stony Creek Rail Restoration Study was to determine whether the restoration of passenger rail service in a corridor defined by the SEPTA Bethlehem and Stony Creek Lines could be feasible or viable in the face of current day market forces. The Study approach was divided into two discrete phases: • PHASE ONE entailed the preliminary development and investigation of rail service alternatives, starting with an inventory of existing and prospective land use and transportation in the study corridor. Three preliminary rail service alternatives for the Corridor were developed and evaluated. • PHASE TWO would entail refining the leading alternative to determine if at least one alternative could be identified that would meet locally acceptable standards for public transportation performance. BCPC undertook the investigation in association with the Montgomery County Planning Commission, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). The Philadelphia consulting firm of Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., was engaged to perform technical investigations, assisted by Norman Day Associates of Philadelphia and KKO and Associates L.L.C., of Andover, Massachusetts.

A.1. Existing Study Corridor Conditions The Study Corridor as a whole can be viewed as defining a potential catchment area or “commutershed” for a possible passenger rail line from Lansdale to Norristown, or from Quakertown to Lansdale, or from Quakertown to Norristown via Lansdale. The outer limits of the Study Corridor included all parts of the 32 municipalities with the potential of being impacted by passenger rail service in the Corridor. The Corridor was subdivided for analytic purposes into northern and southern segments with Lansdale as the division point. Land use patterns in the Corridor can be broadly described as older, higher-density boroughs surrounded by generally newer and lower-density suburban development. In addition, there is extensive low-density non-residential development in the southern half of the Corridor, especially in the municipalities surrounding and immediately south of Lansdale Borough. The total population of the full Study Corridor was estimated by DVRPC to be 303,905 persons as of December 1997. This figure represents a nine percent increase over the 1990 population

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page ii

(279,065) for the 32-municipality study area, based on the 1990 U.S. Census of Population. The southern segment of the Corridor from Norristown to Lansdale had an estimated 1997 population of 169,906, representing a modest four percent increase over the 1990 population of 162,820 for the area, or just under half the rate of increase for the Corridor as a whole between 1990 and 1997. The northern segment of the Corridor from Lansdale to Quakertown had an estimated population of 133,999 persons in 1997, representing an increase of 15.3 percent over the 1990 population of 116,245 persons. This rate of growth is almost twice the growth rate of the Corridor as a whole and over three times the rate of growth for the southern segment in the same period. The whole Corridor contained an estimated 113,955 households in 1997, an increase of 9,861 households over the 1990 figure of 104,094. The average household size stood at 2.67 persons per household in 1997, representing a slight decrease from 2.68 persons per household in 1990. There were slight variations in household sizes among the northern and southern segments of the Corridor. The total estimated number of employees in the full Study Corridor stood at 203,538 persons in 1997, a nine percent increase over the 1990 count of 187,042 employees based on 1990 U.S. Census of Population data. The southern segment of the Corridor from Norristown to Lansdale had an estimated 1997 employee count of 120,403, representing a seven percent increase over the 1990 count of 112,394 employees. The northern segment of the Corridor from Lansdale to Quakertown had an estimated 83,135 employees working in the area in 1997, representing an increase of about 11 percent over the 1990 count of 74,648 employees. In absolute numbers, the northern segment of the Corridor increased by 8,487 employees during the 1990-1997 period compared to an increase of 8,009 employees in the southern segment. Employment statistics suggest that the townships of Plymouth, Whitpain, Upper Gwynedd, Montgomery, and Hatfield are particularly important employment centers in the Corridor. Although beyond the defined limits of the Corridor, Upper Merion Township was also identified as an important adjoining employment center. These municipalities appear to import a significant portion of their workforce from other communities, including the Study Corridor. Prior to World War II, most of the Study Corridor was undeveloped land, mainly devoted to agricultural production, with the exception of a series of older boroughs spaced out along the then operating commuter rail line to the Lehigh Valley. All of these older boroughs, with the exception of North Wales and Lansdale, were located in the northern segment of the Corridor. These included Hatfield, Souderton, Telford, Sellersville, and Perkasie, in addition to Quakertown. Following World War II, the increasing availability of the automobile led to the rapid suburbanization of a significant portion of the southern segment of the Corridor. This growth was particularly evident in townships immediately surrounding Norristown Borough (Plymouth, West Norriton, and Whitpain), which experienced rapid growth mostly in the form of low-density single family detached dwellings in the first three decades after 1950. At the same time, the townships surrounding Lansdale Borough (Upper Gwynedd, Montgomery, Hatfield, and Towamencin) began to experience increased suburban development, albeit at a slower rate than the municipalities surrounding Norristown. The amount of proposed residential and non-residential development activity in the Corridor clearly indicates an economically dynamic area. The overall pattern of development and current land use in the Study Corridor may be broadly described as follows: • The southern segment of the Corridor from Norristown to Lansdale (including Montgomery and Hatfield Townships) is fairly-heavily developed. Extensive areas of low-density residential development surround the high-density mixed-use cores of the older boroughs of Norristown, North Wales, and Lansdale.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page iii

FIGURE A. STUDY CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page iv

• A major exception to this pattern in the southern segment of the Corridor is Worcester Township, which lags behind surrounding townships in terms of the development and the proportions of open space and agricultural land uses. A second, albeit minor exception in the southern segment are the extensive grounds of the former Norristown State Hospital, located just north of the Borough of Norristown, that remain undeveloped and in agricultural use. • The Corridor is less extensively developed above Hatfield Township, up to and including Perkasie Borough. This area exhibits a consistent pattern of small-scale new developments clustering around the older boroughs, but not spreading out and filling in all of the open land between established boroughs as is the prevalent pattern in the southern segment. • Above Perkasie Borough, a low range of hills separates the Quakertown area from the rest of the Corridor. These hills are largely undeveloped due to steep slopes, lack of public sewers, and poor soil for on-site septic systems. The area represents a major break in the pattern of urban land use associated with the old railroad line and PA Route 309. • The Quakertown area (physically separated from the rest of the Corridor by the band of hills noted above) exhibits a full range of land uses. This includes higher-density, mixed-use development in the older borough, and fragmented, small-scale, lower-density residential development in the surrounding townships. There is a significant amount of retail/commercial development along the PA Route 309 highway Corridor and a moderate amount of relatively low-intensity industrial development located in an extensive area north of the borough. • The only significant non-residential land use in the southern Corridor segment (other than the grounds of the Norristown State Hospital and agricultural areas of Worcester Township) consists of five moderately sized shopping centers adjacent to US Route 202 in Norristown Borough and East Norriton and Whitpain Townships. • In the middle of the Study Corridor, non-residential land uses begin to be more prominent. There are several extensive industrial and office parks located in Upper Gwynedd Township, Lansdale Borough, and Hatfield Township—all generally associated with the existing network of older railroads in the area. • The largest concentrations of retail/commercial land uses are found somewhat “off-line” from the axis of the Corridor, in Montgomery Township. Around the intersection of PA Route 309, US Route 202 and Horsham Road is the Montgomery Mall regional shopping center and a significant concentration of closely related secondary shopping facilities. • Along PA Route 309, in the less developed area between Hatfield Borough and Perkasie Borough, there are extensive areas of low-density industrial development. A similar pattern of low intensity industrial development exists in the area north of Quakertown. • The Corridor between Hatfield and Perkasie Boroughs does not contain any large freestanding retail/commercial centers with two exceptions. A moderate sized shopping center is located northeast of Souderton Borough at the intersection of PA Routes 309 and 113, and another is located just north of Telford Borough, also near PA Route 309.

A.2. Existing Study Corridor Transportation The most important highway transportation features in the Corridor are: • The Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (I-476), running more or less in a straight line from Plymouth Meeting to Milford Township in Bucks County • PA Route 309, which roughly parallels the Turnpike and runs from Ambler in the south to Quakertown and Allentown in the north Public transportation in the Study Corridor currently consists of: • Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Regional Rail Division (RRD) operates seven electrified commuter rail routes to over 153 stations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. SEPTA RRD Route R5 service extends as far north in the Study Corridor as Lansdale and Doylestown. SEPTA RRD Route R6 extends as far north as

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page v

Norristown (which is also the terminus of a light rapid transit line through the western suburbs). • SEPTA Bus Routes 96 and 94 represent the predominant local transit presence in the North Penn communities. Route 96 operates hourly service between Norristown and Telford via the US Route 202 Corridor, passing through the residential and commercial areas of North Wales, Lansdale, Hatfield, and Souderton Boroughs. Route 94 operates hourly service between Chestnut Hill (Northwest Philadelphia) and Lansdale. Both routes serve the Montgomery Mall (a regional shopping center in Montgomeryville) and link together major population and employment centers of Central Montgomery County. • Carl R. Bieber Tourways, Inc., a private intercity service operating daily bus service between Reading and Philadelphia, which passes through the Study Corridor. Stops are made along PA Route 309 at Quakertown, Sellersville, Line Lexington, Colmar, Montgomeryville, North Wales, Glenside and five locations in North Philadelphia. The route terminates in Center City Philadelphia at the Greyhound Terminal (10th & Filbert Streets) with some trips extended to 30th Street Station. The Norristown Transportation Center (NTC) is a major transfer center for SEPTA rail and surface transit services. NTC is a hub for seven surface bus routes radiating out of Norristown (including Route 96) to King of Prussia as well as Pottstown, Collegeville, Phoenixville, Oaks, Ambler, and Conshohocken. NTC is also served by RRD Route R6 trains from Center City Philadelphia, and is the northern terminus for SEPTA Route 100, a light rapid rail line through the western suburbs to Upper Darby.

A.3. Future Study Corridor Conditions The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) has projected future population, households, and employment data for the municipalities in the Study Corridor for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020. The most recent estimate of present population, households, and employment by municipality is for December 1997. According to DVRPC projections for the Year 2020, the population of the entire Study Corridor will increase by 29,289 persons between 1997 and 2020 and will reach 333,194 persons by 2020. Projections reveal an increasing shift of growth away from the southern segment of the Corridor and toward the northern segment. The southern segment is projected to grow by only 6,450 persons (about four percent) from 1997 to 2020, while the northern segment is projected to grow by 22,839 persons (about 17 percent) during the same period. Projected increases in employment in the Study Corridor from 1997 to 2020 are significant in absolute numbers and in relationship to the growth in households. The number of jobs expected to be located in the Corridor in 2020 is projected to be 237,663, which represents an increase of 34,125 jobs, or a 16.7 percent increase, over the 1997 base of 203,538 jobs. This projected increase in jobs in the Corridor exceeds the growth in households, indicating that the Corridor will likely be a significant net importer of workers from adjacent areas. Of major significance, the southern segment of the Corridor is projected to claim a disproportionately large share of the total employment in the full Corridor. This concentration of jobs in the Montgomery County portion of the Corridor, taken in combination with the fact that these Montgomery County municipalities are net importers of workers from areas outside the Corridor, indicates that the area from Lansdale to Norristown is a significant destination for employment and commercial services. A further conclusion that can be drawn from these data is that most of the municipalities in the Bucks County portion of the Corridor, as well as the townships of Lower Salford, Franconia and Salford in Montgomery County, function primarily as “bedroom communities” to a much greater degree than the municipalities in the southern segment of the Corridor.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page vi

B. DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES

B.1. Preliminary Station Locations For planning purposes, a set of station locations was identified along the alignment of the SEPTA Stony Creek and Bethlehem Branches. Eleven preliminary locations for new stations north of the present Elm Street Station on the R6 Regional Rail line in Norristown were suggested for analytic purposes. Five of the stations are located in the middle of older boroughs and are intended to serve primarily as walk-in stations. Five are located in relatively undeveloped areas between older boroughs where they are intended to intercept traffic on major highways and to provide park-and-ride services. One is located in a relatively undeveloped area at the northern limit of the train line. This northernmost station at Shelly is intended to function as a terminal park-and-ride station located to intercept traffic from parts of Lehigh County traveling south on PA Route 309. Two other stations—Derstines and Franconia—are also intended to intercept traffic from PA Route 309, but at locations that are more southerly. The Blue Bell and East Norriton stations are intended to be accessible from their respective catchment areas primarily via Sumneytown Pike and Germantown Pike. All of these new station sites represent significant opportunities for future transit-oriented development.

B.2. Guidelines for Preliminary Alternatives Development The Scope of Work for the Quakertown-Stony Creek Rail Restoration Study called for the development and evaluation of three preliminary service alternatives. The Study Technical Advisory Committee set eleven objectives for the Study, two of which have direct bearing upon the functional and physical characteristics of passenger service alternatives: 1. Assess conditions in the rail corridor through Upper Bucks County and Central Montgomery County in two segments: • Shelly to Lansdale on the Bethlehem Branch. • Lansdale to Norristown on the Stony Creek Branch. 2. Identify low-cost, short timeframe rail transportation alternatives that would: • Enhance corridor access to Center City Philadelphia; • Enhance corridor access to King of Prussia area employment centers; and • Enhance travel between communities within the corridor. These study objectives were applied as the basis for guidelines for preliminary alternatives development. The preliminary alternatives developed would need to conform to the following key guidelines: • Consider potential combinations of the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Branches. This guideline defines the physical alignment of the alternatives and suggests consideration of whether one line, both lines, or portions of either line justify reactivation. To optimize the analysis, each alternative should represent a paired set of improvements that maximize use of either existing rail facilities, but allow independent evaluation of their component parts. • Be confined to low-cost improvements that can be implemented on a short timeframe. The time and budget constraints implied by this guideline confine alternatives to those that maximize use of existing (or immediately pending) rail facilities, and that minimize the extent of new construction and right-of-way acquisition. Alternatives should eschew new or esoteric technologies inconsistent with present SEPTA operating practice or those technologies which require research or development to deploy. Alternatives should comply with the present policies of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page vii

• Provide access to Center City Philadelphia and King of Prussia. In addition to addressing intra-corridor travel needs, each alternative should enhance access for Study Corridor residents to employment opportunities both in Center City Philadelphia and in the King of Prussia area—the leading “edge city” of the Philadelphia region.

B.3. Development of Preliminary Alternatives Three preliminary alternatives were developed to address travel requirements of the Study Corridor based on the preceding guidelines. Each alternative consisted of a pair of service strategies—one for the Bethlehem Branch, one for the Stony Creek Branch—that may or may not be operationally interdependent. The preliminary alternatives were crafted to supply unique combinations of Bethlehem Branch and Stony Creek Branch service strategies that would facilitate the independent evaluation of its component service strategies during the course of the screening exercise. Three preliminary alternatives were assembled to serve as a test bed for comparing the relative benefits and disbenefits of various service strategies for the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Branches. In accordance with the alternative guidelines and in order to provide an effective comparison of the maximum number of alternative subcomponents, each alternative was crafted to: • Explore a unique, different service strategy (through service vs. connecting service) for both the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Branches. • Explore a unique, different access strategy for branch line residents to access both Center City Philadelphia and the King of Prussia area. • Avoid duplication of service strategies or subcomponents that are functionally similar to those explored in other alternatives. Various combinations of service strategies were matched to conceptual themes to yield the three preliminary alternatives for further analysis. The following pages provide a description and discussion of each preliminary alternative.

ALTERNATIVE 1: CONNECTING SERVICE, OPERATIONALLY INDEPENDENT OF EXISTING SEPTA SERVICE

SERVICE STRATEGIES Bethlehem Branch: Shuttle train service between SHELLY and WILMER via Lansdale, Norristown, and Phoenixville. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ACCESS TO CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA: Bethlehem Branch: Passengers transfer to SEPTA Route R5 trains at Lansdale. Stony Creek Branch: Passengers transfer to SEPTA Route R6 trains at the Norristown Transportation Center.

ACCESS TO KING OF PRUSSIA: Bethlehem Branch: Passengers transfer to SEPTA “200-Series” shuttles at Port Kennedy Station. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

MODAL TECHNOLOGY/REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT: Bethlehem Branch: Railroad/FRA Compliant. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ROLLING STOCK STRATEGIES/PROPULSION POWER: Bethlehem Branch: Diesel Self-Propelled Railcars. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page viii

ALTERNATIVE 2 THROUGH SERVICE, OPERATIONALLY INDEPENDENT OF EXISTING SEPTA SERVICE

SERVICE STRATEGIES: Bethlehem Branch: Through train service between SHELLY and 30TH STREET STATION, PHILADELPHIA via Lansdale, Norristown, and North Philadelphia. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ACCESS TO CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA: Bethlehem Branch: Direct service to Lower-Level 30th Street Station; Center City passengers transfer to SEPTA electric trains at Upper-Level 30th Street Station. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ACCESS TO KING OF PRUSSIA: Bethlehem Branch: Passengers transfer to SEPTA Route 99 buses at Norristown Transportation Center. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

MODAL TECHNOLOGY/REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT: Bethlehem Branch: Railroad/FRA Compliant. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ROLLING STOCK STRATEGIES/PROPULSION POWER: Bethlehem Branch: Diesel Self-Propelled Railcars or Locomotive-Hauled Coaches. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ALTERNATIVE 3 THROUGH SERVICE, OPERATIONALLY MERGED WITH EXISTING SEPTA SERVICE

SERVICE STRATEGIES: Bethlehem Branch: Through train service between SHELLY and 30TH STREET STATION, PHILADELPHIA via Lansdale, Jenkintown, and Center City. Stony Creek Branch: Shuttle train service between LANSDALE and KING OF PRUSSIA via Stony Creek and Route 100 King of Prussia Spur (Strategy K2).

ACCESS TO CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA: Bethlehem Branch: Direct service to all Center City stations. Stony Creek Branch: Passengers transfer to SEPTA Route R6 trains at the Norristown Transportation Center.

ACCESS TO KING OF PRUSSIA: Bethlehem Branch: Passengers transfer to Stony Creek shuttle train at Lansdale. Stony Creek Branch: Direct service to King of Prussia.

MODAL TECHNOLOGY/REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT: Bethlehem Branch: Railroad/FRA Compliant. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ROLLING STOCK STRATEGIES/PROPULSION POWER: Bethlehem Branch: Self-Propelled Railcars or Locomotive-Hauled Coaches (same as existing SEPTA RRD rolling stock). Stony Creek Branch: Diesel Self-Propelled Light Railcars (Type III DMU)

B.4. Initial Public Meetings Two public meetings were conducted to introduce possible service concepts, gather public comments, and gauge public interest in the restoration of passenger rail service in the Corridor. The three preliminary alternatives were presented in at both public meetings to facilitate

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page ix discussion. The first meeting was held at Quakertown Borough on April 20, 1999. The second meeting was held in Hatfield Borough on April 22, 1999. A total of 92 people attended both meetings. Public response to the service proposals was overwhelmingly positive. A concern was raised that the service strategy using AC catenary-compatible, dual-power locomotives was dismissed prematurely. Since the availability of a dual-power locomotive could enhance the attractiveness of Alternative 2, the Study Technical Advisory Committee agreed to continue to consider the service strategy in parallel to the proposed strategy using conventional diesel locomotives.

C. SELECTION OF THE LEAD ALTERNATIVE

The capital costs, operating costs, and patronage potential associated with each preliminary alternative are summarized in Table A. Alternative 2 entails the lowest capital and operating costs while scoring highest in terms of patronage affinity to Center City Philadelphia. Alternative 3 scored a higher patronage affinity to King of Prussia, albeit through significant investment in infrastructure. TABLE A PRELIMINARY SERVICE ALTERNATIVES CAPITAL COST, OPERATING COST AND PATRONAGE ASSESSMENTS Alternative 1 2 3 Capital Costs—Infrastructure $80.7 million $58.2 million $109.3 million Capital Costs—Vehicles $35.0 million $35.0 million $41.6 million Annual Operating Costs $9.9 million $9.8 million $10.6 million Patronage Affinity to Philadelphia CBD 1191 1361 1275 Patronage Affinity to King of Prussia 500 374 791 There was a suggestion that the relative passenger affinity scores for Alternative 2 could be further improved if calculations considered: • Using dual-power rolling stock capable of providing direct access to Suburban, Market East, and Temple University Stations in Center City Philadelphia. • Passengers transferring to the proposed Route 100 King of Prussia Spur at the Norristown Transportation Center rather than using local bus service (Route 99) for King of Prussia access. Based on these scores, the Study Technical Advisory Committee recommended advancing Alternative 2 as the lead alternative for further analysis in Phase Two. This recommendation should not be misconstrued to suggest that Alternative 2 represents a viable means for restoring passenger rail on the Bethlehem Branch and/or the Stony Creek Branch; nor that it is the only or best means. If Phase Two concludes that there is at least one feasible means of restoring passenger rail service, all service alternatives would be subjected to further scrutiny in a follow- on transportation improvement study in accordance with federal planning guidelines.

D. REFINEMENT OF THE LEAD ALTERNATIVE

D.1. Definition of the Lead Alternative The Lead Alternative (Alternative 2) was defined as providing through, diesel rail service between Shelly in Richland Township, Bucks County, and 30th Street Station in Center City Philadelphia (see Figure B). The service could be operated with diesel push-pull locomotive and coach equipment or self-propelled diesel rail car equipment. Train service would be primarily oriented toward providing traditional, radial suburb-to-center city transit service, but could also serve intermediate intra-suburban trips along the route. Connections could be made with SEPTA Route R6 and Route 100 services in Norristown and with SEPTA Route R5 service in Lansdale.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page x

The service would originate in Shelly, operate south on the Bethlehem Running Track to Dale Interlocking in Lansdale, continue southward on the Stony Creek Line to Elm Interlocking, then continue southward on the Norristown Line. Trains would operate non-stop between the Norristown Transportation Center and 30th Street Station, overlaying the existing local service provided by Route R6 trains. In effect, this alternative would mirror the attributes of the popular Norristown-Philadelphia express trains that were eliminated with Reading train service in 1981. Only electric trains are permitted to operate through the Center City Commuter Connection (CCCC). The new diesel train service, therefore, would leave the Norristown Line at North Philadelphia and operate via the Amtrak Northeast Corridor to the lower level of 30th Street Station. This is the only open-air station in Center City and diesel trains operated by Amtrak and NJ Transit presently terminate at this location. Under Alternative 2, trains would mix with conventional railroad trains passing through Lansdale and on the SEPTA Norristown Line between Norristown and North Philadelphia. They would also mix with Amtrak, SEPTA, and NJ Transit conventional railroad trains on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor between North Philadelphia and 30th Street Station. Therefore, they would be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and would require rolling stock compatible with FRA regulations. With improvements in place to allow for 60 mph maximum allowable speeds (with significant speed restrictions for curvature and densely settled areas), trains could operate a limited stop service from Shelly to 30th Street in approximately 90 minutes. It was envisioned that the service developed for analytic purposes would be primarily oriented toward peak period commuting with limited reverse-peak and off-peak service.

D.2. Review of the Lead Alternative An apparent shortcoming in Alternative 2 identified during Phase One was its Philadelphia terminus at 30th Street Station, located across town from major Center City employment sites. Many potential commuters would need to transfer to other SEPTA services in order to reach their final destinations. From an operational standpoint, Alternative 2 requires cooperation from Amtrak to access its Northeast Corridor and station facilities. The current track configuration of North Philadelphia Interlocking would limit the new trains to operating over a single track in both directions between Zoo Interlocking and the Norristown Line interchange track. This configuration would complicate train movements on a fairly congested portion of railroad shared by Amtrak high-speed Acela trainsets and conventional trains, two SEPTA regional rail routes, and the NJ Transit Atlantic City service. The patronage assessment activities conducted in Phase One suggested that services offering direct service through the CCCC attracted more ridership than comparable services requiring passengers to transfer enroute to reach Center City destinations. Similar comments were heard during the two initial public meetings.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page xi

FIGURE B. ALTERNATIVE 2 ALIGNMENT AND STOPS

New Regional Rail Service EXISTING RAIL SERVICES Rte. R5 Regional Rail Service Rte. R6 Regional Rail Service Other Regional Rail Services Rte. 100 Light Rail Service Rte. 100 King of Prussia Spur (proposed) STATION LOCATIONS New Regional Rail Service Stops Rte. R5 & R6 Stops (Express & Local trains) Rte. R5 & R6 Stops (Local trains only) Interchange Station (All trains stop)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page xii

Only electric trains are permitted to operate through the CCCC in revenue service. Operating Alternative 2 trains through the CCCC could only be accomplished through one of two possible means: • Electrify the outlying railroad branches; or • Employ dual-power rolling stock capable of operating in electric and non-electric modes. The former concept was previously considered in Phase One (Alternative 3) but was set aside due to its higher capital costs relative to Alternative 2. An AC dual-power option was not pursued in Phase One due to the speculative nature of its availability. A DC dual-power option was not pursued due to the capital costs associated with acquiring unique rolling stock and installing duplicative electrification through the CCCC. Concerns were also expressed over introducing a radical departure from current SEPTA operating, equipment, and electrification practices. It was suggested in the Phase One report, however, that the dual-power options might be reconsidered if Alternative 2 advanced to Phase Two (see Figure C). Given the potential passenger benefits associated with providing direct service to more Center City destinations through the CCCC, both dual-power options were afforded further consideration in Phase Two as Alternatives 2A and 2B, respectively. Both alternatives would be virtually indistinguishable from the base Alternative 2 north of the Norristown Transportation Center. The variations are: • Alternative 2A: Dual-Power (AC Catenary). Locomotives would shift from on-board power to external AC power drawn from the OCS while dwelling at the Norristown Transportation Center. After shifting to external power, trains would proceed southward via the SEPTA Norristown Line and Main Line through the CCCC, making station stops at Temple University, Market East, Suburban, and 30th Street Stations before terminating in Powelton Yard. Northbound trains would operate in a similar manner in reverse, shifting back to on- board power at the Norristown Transportation Center then before proceeding northward on the Stony Creek Branch. • Alternative 2B: Dual-Power (DC Third Rail). Trains would continue southward from the Norristown Transportation Center via the SEPTA Norristown Line and Main Line under its own power. Locomotives would shift from on-board power to DC power drawn from the wayside third rail while dwelling at Temple University Station. After the shift to external power, trains will proceed southward via the SEPTA Main Line through the CCCC, making station stops at Market East, Suburban, and 30th Street Stations before terminating in Powelton Yard. Northbound trains would operate in a similar manner in reverse, shifting back to on-board power at the Temple University Station before proceeding northward.

D.3. Travel Demand Forecasting A more detailed analysis of the travel demand potential was conducted for the Lead Alternative and the two variations. Analysis was based on the DVRPC model output with enhancements provided by the PB Team to improve its sensitivity to commuter rail service frequencies and to account for varying station access characteristics. DVRPC prepared the input data and performed 1997 and 2020 No-Build runs to ensure reliable model operation under the supervision of PB. DVRPC prepared revisions to zones and highway and transit networks to focus the level of detail in the study corridor. The PB team coded the highway and transit network changes for the 2020 “Build” alternatives. The modeling process employed for this feasibility study was not subjected to the same level of scrutiny and repetition normally afforded by a more detailed study, such as a transportation investment study. Therefore, the patronage forecast is expressed in terms of a range. Not all passengers would be new transit riders. A portion of the projected ridership would be existing SEPTA riders diverted from the existing Route R5 or Route R6 services. Table B provides a summary of the ridership forecast, annualized and accounting for diverted ridership.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page xiii

FIGURE C. ALTERNATIVES 2A & 2B ALIGNMENT AND STOPS

New Regional Rail Service EXISTING RAIL SERVICES Rte. R5 Regional Rail Service Rte. R6 Regional Rail Service Other Regional Rail Services Rte. 100 Light Rail Service Rte. 100 King of Prussia Spur (proposed) STATION LOCATIONS New Regional Rail Service Stops Rte. R5 & R6 Stops (Express & Local trains) Rte. R5 & R6 Stops (Local trains only) Interchange Station (All trains stop)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page xiv

For Alternative 2, 2020 weekday ridership was forecasted to range from 2,620 to 4,267 passenger trips. The model forecasts that 65 percent of these passengers (1,703 to 2,773 trips) would represent new transit riders. For Alternatives 2A and 2B, 2020 weekday ridership was forecasted to range from 4,181 to 6,809 passenger trips. The model forecasts that 47 percent of these passengers (1,965 to 3,200 trips) would represent new transit riders. The revenue resulting from the total and new ridership associated with each alternative was calculated, using average fare figures provided by SEPTA for each fare zone. The revenue forecasts are also summarized in Table B. The two alternatives operating through Center City Philadelphia generate the greatest total revenues, but a greater proportion of their passenger are existing transit riders diverted to the new service. When this is accounted for, the advantages of the CCCC alternatives in terms of new revenue are modest in comparison to base Alternative 2.

TABLE B. SUMMARY OF FORECASTED RIDERSHIP AND REVENUES Alternative 2 Alternatives 2A & 2B Low Range High Range Low Range High Range Weekday Trips 2,620 trips 4,267 trips 4,181 trips 6,809 trips Annual Trips 759,754 trips 1,237,314 trips 1,212,551 trips 1,974,726 trips New Passengers 65% 65% 47% 47% New Trips (Weekday) 1,703 trips 2,773 trips 1,965 trips 3,200 trips New Trips (Annual) 493,840 trips 804,254 trips 569,899 trips 928,121 trips Total Revenue $ 4,302,931 $ 7,007,631 $ 6,158,196 $ 10,029,062 New Revenue $ 2,796,905 $ 4,554,960 $ 2,894,352 $ 4,713,659

D.4. Cost Estimates

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE Operating and capital costs were estimated for the lead alternatives in a manner similar to that employed in Phase One. Unlike the previous effort, however, Phase Two required an absolute rather than relative assessment of cost. Greater scrutiny was focused on smaller elements of each alternative as well as “soft” costs associated with subsequent design and construction steps necessary for implementation. Cost estimates for each alternative are summarized in Table C.

TABLE C. SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES Alternative 2 Alternative 2A Alternative 2B Total Capital Costs $ 180,217,035 $ 214,582,189 $ 211,334,407 Total Annual Operating Costs $ 5,602,699 $ 5,369,178 $ 5,700,032 New Annual Revenue (Avg.) $ 3,675,933 $ 3,804,006 $ 3,804,006 Annual Operating Deficit $ 1,926,767 $ 1,565,172 $ 1,896,026 Operating Ratio 66% 71% 67% Applying the average of the revenues from Table B to each alternative, it is possible to determine their operating deficits and operating ratios (annual passenger revenue divided by annual operating expense, also referred to as the “farebox recovery ratio”). These values have been added to Table C. All three of the alternatives achieve operating ratios in excess of the current average value for SEPTA regional rail services (44 percent in FY1999). This is typical for outlying extensions of the regional rail system as the passengers the services attract generally travel longer distances and pay the highest fares. Furthermore, incremental extensions of existing service do not require repeating many core system expenses (e.g.: shops, terminals, share station).

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page xv

E. EVALUATION OF THE LEAD ALTERNATIVE

The basic question posed in these investigations remains: Do any of these alternatives represent viable opportunities for new rail service? In order to frame these operating and financial statistics in a meaningful context for evaluation, the Federal Transit Administration’s National Transit Database employs six performance measures to objectively gauge service efficiency, cost effectiveness, and service effectiveness: • Operating Expense per Vehicle Mile. • Operating Expense per Vehicle Hour. • Operating Expense per Passenger Mile. • Operating Expense per Passenger Trip. • Passenger Trips per Vehicle Mile. • Passenger Trips per Vehicle Hour. Table D compares the three alternatives to the SEPTA regional rail network and the PennDOT Keystone service. Information concerning these operations was drawn from the Transit Profiles—1998 National Transit Database Report Year. TABLE D. COMPARATIVE OPERATING PERFORMANCE MEASURES SEPTA PennDOT Alternative Alternative Alternative RRD Keystone 2 2A 2B Service Efficiency Operating Expense per Vehicle Mile $ 10.58 $ 8.66 $ 3.12 $ 3.00 $ 3.18 Operating Expense per Vehicle Hour $ 290.90 $ 450.51 $ 76.11 $ 72.94 $ 77.43 Cost Effectiveness Operating Expense per Passenger Mile $ 0.38 $ 0.35 $ 0.19 $ 0.13 $ 0.14 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip $ 5.37 $ 26.73 $ 8.63 $ 7.17 $ 7.61 Service Effectiveness Passenger Trips per Vehicle Mile 1.97 0.32 0.36 0.42 0.42 Passenger Trips per Vehicle Hour 54.19 16.85 8.82 10.18 10.18 All three of the Quakertown-Stony Creek alternatives are forecasted to outperform either of the comparative services in every performance measure except one: operating expense per passenger trip. In this category, the existing SEPTA regional rail network bests all three of the alternatives. This suggests that, while the proposed alternatives represent efficient and effective services, they are less cost-effective than the existing SEPTA system. This is to be expected, however, for a long-distance rail service extension, which needs to travel further to serve relatively low-density population centers. Comparing the cost-effectiveness of the three alternatives to the PennDOT Keystone service to Harrisburg demonstrates the unavoidable cost implications of longer distance rail services.

E.1. Follow-Up Public Meetings Two additional public meetings were conducted to review the findings of the Phase Two investigations with the general public, gather comments, and further gauge interest for a restoration of passenger rail service in the Corridor. The preliminary alternatives and the three variations of Alternative 2 with their associated costs were presented at both public meetings to facilitate discussion. As with the initial public meetings, one meeting was held in Quakertown Borough on June 5, 2000, which was attended by approximately 46 people. The venue for second meeting, however, was moved to Upper Gwynedd Township. The previous meeting in Hatfield Township did not attract residents who live along the Stony Creek Branch and it was felt that their concerns would differ sufficiently from Montgomery County residents who live along the Bethlehem Branch. The

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page xvi

Upper Gwynedd Township meeting was held on June 8, 2000, with approximately 80 people in attendance. Public response to the service proposal was unanimously positive at the Quakertown meeting, including the submission of a petition to the Bucks County representative signed by 400 local citizens supporting restoration of passenger rail service. In contrast, the response at the Upper Gwynedd Township meeting was mixed, the negative comments revolved around the concerns of residents living along the Stony Creek Branch immediately south of Lansdale, where the alignment rests on a high fill. Their basic concerns were: • Due to the elevated nature of the alignment, increased use of the Stony Creek Branch would be intrusive, especially on backyard activities that abut the right of way. • The mitigation strategies proposed elsewhere for the Stony Creek Branch (a combination of fencing, berms and plantings) would not be effective in their community, where lot sizes are smaller, the railroad is elevated, and right of way widths are limited. • Increased train traffic through Stony Creek Branch grade crossings immediately south of Lansdale, coupled with the existing Route R5 train traffic through nearby SEPTA Main Line grade crossings, would bring automobile traffic to a standstill. • People living along the Bethlehem Branch would incur similar inconveniences associated with a new rail service (increased traffic, noise, vibrations), but these would be partially offset by its benefits (increased mobility and property values). In contrast, people who live along the Stony Creek Branch immediately south of Lansdale would incur the inconveniences without offsetting benefits as the existing Route R5 rail service is already nearby. In response to these concerns, it was pointed out that the traffic and neighborhood impacts of a Stony Creek Branch rail service would be further investigated in much greater detail through the federally-prescribed Transportation Investment Study (TIS) process, should any of these concepts be subsequently advanced for implementation. Possible mitigation strategies were discussed, such as shifting the railroad to the parallel, ground-level alignment of the former Lehigh Valley Transit interurban right of way (now owned by PECO Energy) on the opposite side of the railroad embankment from the residential communities and using the existing embankment as a buffer. It was pointed out, however, that in-depth development of mitigation strategies was beyond the scope of the current study. In addition to these concerns, several positive comments were also received in support of the proposed rail service at the Upper Gwynedd Township meeting.

E.2. Determination of Feasibility It is the determination of this investigation that restoring passenger rail service over the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Lines would be both feasible and viable. At least one approach to implementing passenger rail service in the corridor (Alternative 2 with two additional variations) was identified which met locally acceptable standards for public transportation performance in terms of operating ratio and other financial and operational measures. This is not to say, however, that Alternative 2 should be considered as the only viable option for passenger rail service in the corridor. Upon more intensive analysis, any combination of preliminary alternatives analyzed in Phase One of this study could be deemed as equally worthwhile. Some concerns were identified that warrant further, more detailed analysis in the course of any subsequent investigation of passenger rail service in the corridor: • The functional capacity of the SEPTA Main Line to absorb additional peak period traffic between Jenkintown and Wayne Junction. • The functional capacity of the SEPTA Norristown Line to absorb additional traffic between Norristown and Center City given the possible increased traffic proposed for the Schuylkill Valley Metro Corridor by SEPTA’s MetroRail preferred alternative (under consideration in an independent SEPTA study).

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Executive Summary Page xvii

• The viability of dual-powered locomotives compatible with the existing SEPTA catenary system. • Mitigation strategies necessary to minimize the traffic and neighborhood impacts of any Stony Creek Branch rail service alternative on adjoining properties.

E.3. Next Steps As demonstrated by these investigations, passenger rail services incur significant amounts of operating and capital expenses. Implementing any of the services described by this study would require the cooperation and support of local, state and federal governments. Federal support for “new start” rail projects is subject to close scrutiny by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Congress. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) initiated the process that the federal government applies to make discretionary grants in support of major capital investment projects. Under ISTEA, all major transit and highway capacity expansions must be subjected to a Transportation Investment Study (TIS) prior to their inclusion in local transportation plans or the Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) maintained by the local metropolitan planning organization (in this case, DVRPC). The ISTEA project planning process was streamlined under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)—the federal government’s current six-year surface transportation finance program that succeeded ISTEA in 1998. A traditional MIS or TIS is no longer required under TEA-21, although the planning process must still consider many of the same factors and concerns prescribed under ISTEA. Local areas may opt to compress the overall implementation schedule by conducting environmental investigations and preliminary engineering in parallel with the “new starts” application process for federal support. Taken as a whole, these options can significantly reduce the time and budget of implementing relatively straightforward rail projects. In this context, this preliminary study undertaken by the Bucks County Planning Commission should be recognized as the initial step in a comprehensive, coordinated and continuing planning process that is designed to provide a more complete understanding of the options available to address transportation problems before investment decisions are made.

F. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this investigation has determined that restoration of passenger rail service over the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Lines would be both feasible and viable in terms of operating ratio and other financial and operational measures of public transportation performance. There are significant capital costs associated with these options, however, which SEPTA, the Counties, and the Commonwealth must consider and prioritize relative to the other competing financial needs within the region. Any subsequent study should address the full range of alternatives for providing such service, as well as methods and mitigation strategies to minimize any adverse impacts on neighboring communities.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates

Q UAKERTOWN-STONY C REEK R AIL R ESTORATION S TUDY

Final Report

1. STUDY OVERVIEW

Late in the 19th Century, residential and commercial development rose from outlying farmlands in Bucks and Montgomery Counties. This growth clustered around the stations of the North Pennsylvania Railroad that prescribed the path of commerce between Philadelphia and the Lehigh Valley. The patterns of development that emerged to become the boroughs of Upper Bucks and North Penn represented an attractive form of suburban lifestyle long before terms like “livable communities” and “transit oriented development” entered the planning lexicon. The transition of personal transportation from common carriage modes to the automobile throughout the 20th Century, however, led to a transformation of the regional landscape. The resultant dispersion of residential, retail, and employment sites diminished both the primacy of public transportation and the importance of boroughs as central places. The Upper Bucks and North Penn boroughs—once islands of small-scale urbanization amidst a sea of agricultural activity—are now surrounded by lower-density forms of development that rely on the automobile for virtually every kind of travel purpose. The concept of a “peak period” filled with only commuter traffic has blurred; now almost any reason to travel—shopping, school, sports, library, hairdresser, milk—creates significant numbers of additional automobile trips during the peak period. Highway construction cannot keep pace with the explosive growth of suburban automobile traffic. This type of development has led to a spiraling increase in travel time and traffic congestion at all times of the day, every day of the week. As the turn of the 21st Century approaches, there is renewed interest in finding alternatives to suburban sprawl and the utter dependency on automobiles associated with it. Part of the answer may lie in the redevelopment of older boroughs, where residential and commercial activities merge on a pedestrian scale. Another part of the answer may lie in restoration of off-street public transportation systems linking outlying communities with the greatest remaining concentrations of employment in Center City Philadelphia and King of Prussia. With this concept in mind, the Bucks County Planning Commission chose to investigate of the potential for restoring passenger rail service linking the Upper Bucks and North Penn communities with the Center City Philadelphia and King of Prussia employment centers. The investigation—the Quakertown-Stony Creek Rail Restoration Study—was undertaken in association with the Montgomery County Planning Commission, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC).

1.1. Study Approach The purpose of the Quakertown-Stony Creek Rail Restoration Study was to determine whether the restoration of passenger rail service over the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Lines could be feasible or viable. The Study approach was divided into two discrete phases. PHASE ONE would entail the preliminary development and investigation of rail service alternatives, starting with assembling an inventory of existing and prospective Corridor conditions. Three preliminary rail service alternatives for the Corridor were developed and evaluated. PHASE TWO would entail refining the leading alternative to determine if at least one alternative could be identified that would meet locally acceptable standards for public transportation performance.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 2

1.2. Study Organization This study was funded through grants provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Study Technical Advisory Transportation and Federal Transit Committee Administration. The Bucks County Planning Richard G. Brahler, Jr. Commission engaged the services of the Bucks County Planning Commission Philadelphia consulting firm of Parsons Project Manager Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., to Lauren Emes undertake the investigation. The consultant's Montgomery County Planning Commission efforts were directed by the Bucks County John Dawson Planning Commission and a Study Technical Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Advisory Committee made up of individuals Harrison Garforth representing the Counties and regional Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority transportation interests.

2. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS IN THE CORRIDOR

2.1. Location and Limits of the Study Corridor The Study Corridor extends from the Borough of Norristown to Shelly, which is located in Richland Township north of the Borough of Quakertown near the Bucks-Lehigh County Line—a distance of approximately 26 miles. The Study Corridor, as depicted in Figure 1, varies in width from about eight miles at its narrowest point to over 13 miles in its widest sections. In general, the southern axis of the Corridor is aligned with the SEPTA Stony Creek Line, describing a lazy zigzag from the center of Norristown to Lansdale. The northern axis of the Corridor is aligned with the SEPTA Bethlehem Running Track, describing a more direct path through the hearts of Hatfield, Souderton, Telford, Sellersville, Perkasie, and Quakertown Boroughs, to Shelly. The Bethlehem Running Track effectively represents an extension of the SEPTA Main Line running from Center City Philadelphia through Jenkintown and Lansdale. There are 32 municipalities within the Study Corridor. The 19 municipalities located within Montgomery County are (listed from south to north in the order they are encountered along the alignment): Norristown Borough1 West Norriton Township East Norriton Township1 Plymouth Township Whitpain Township1 Worcester Township1 Lower Gwynedd Township Upper Gwynedd Township1 North Wales Borough Towamencin Township Lower Salford Township Lansdale Borough1 Montgomery Township Hatfield Township1 Hatfield Borough1 Franconia Township1 Souderton Borough1 Telford Borough1 Salford Township The 13 municipalities located within Bucks County (Telford Borough is located in both counties) are:

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 3

Telford Borough1 Hilltown Township Silverdale Borough West Rockhill Township1 Sellersville Borough1 Perkasie Borough1 East Rockhill Township1 Richland Township1 Quakertown Borough1 Richlandtown Borough Milford Township Trumbauersville Borough Haycock Township Springfield Township The Corridor as a whole can be viewed as defining potential catchment area or “commutershed” for a possible passenger rail line from Lansdale to Norristown, or from Quakertown to Lansdale, or from Quakertown to Norristown via Lansdale. The outer limits of the Corridor have been rationalized to include all parts of the 32 municipalities that have the potential of being impacted by passenger rail service in the Corridor. The Corridor was subdivided for analytic purposes into northern and southern segments with Lansdale as the division point, reflecting a likely break point at that location for various types of transit services. Eight Montgomery County communities (Montgomery Township, Hatfield Township, Hatfield Borough, Towamencin Township, Franconia Township, Salford Township, Souderton Borough and Telford Borough) plus all Bucks County communities constitute the northern Corridor segment. The most important transportation features in the Corridor are: • Three aforementioned SEPTA railroad lines • The Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (I-476), running more or less in a straight line from Plymouth Meeting to Milford Township in Bucks County • PA Route 309, which roughly parallels the Turnpike and runs from Fort Washington on the south to Quakertown and Allentown on the north The Corridor was once traversed by a variety of passenger rail services. Lehigh Valley Transit Company (LVT) operated an interurban light rail line from Upper Darby to Allentown via Norristown, Lansdale, and Quakertown until September 1951. An extension of the present SEPTA network operated conventional commuter railroad service over the Bethlehem Line between Philadelphia and Bethlehem until 1981. Both services had stops in the commercial centers of each borough. A limited passenger railroad service operated over the Stony Creek Line until the 1930s. Reflecting the influences of changing means of transportation over time, land use patterns in the Corridor can be broadly described as older, higher-density boroughs surrounded by generally newer and lower-density suburban development. In addition, there is extensive low-density non-residential development in the southern half of the Corridor, especially in the municipalities surrounding and immediately south of Lansdale Borough.

1 Denotes municipalities through which the Quakertown-Stony Creek rail alignment passes. The other municipalities are those located within the potential commutershed of the alignment.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 4

FIGURE 1. STUDY CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 5

2.2. Existing Study Corridor Conditions

2.2.1. Demographics The existing demographic characteristics of the communities located within the Corridor are described below in three sections: population, households, and employment.

POPULATION The total population of the full Study Corridor was estimated by DVRPC to be 303,905 persons as of December 1997. This figure represents an nine percent increase over the 1990 population (279,065) for the 32 municipality area, based on the 1990 U.S. Census of Population (see Table 1 and Figure 2). The southern segment of the Corridor from Norristown to Lansdale had an estimated 1997 population of 169,906, representing a modest four percent increase over the 1990 population of 162,820 for the area, or just under half the rate of increase for the Corridor as a whole between 1990 and 1997. The northern segment of the Corridor from Lansdale to Quakertown had an estimated population of 133,999 persons in 1997, representing an increase of 15.3 percent over the 1990 population of 116,245 persons. This rate of growth is almost twice the growth rate of the Corridor as a whole and over three times the rate of growth for the southern segment in the same time period. In absolute numbers, the northern segment of the Corridor grew by 17,754 persons during the 1990-1997 time period, compared to a growth of 7,086 persons in the southern segment. Thus, the population growth in the northern segment was close to four times the magnitude of growth in the southern segment between 1990 and 1997. The southern segment’s share of total population in the full Corridor as of December 1997 was 56 percent while the northern segment’s share was 44 percent. The corresponding figures in 1990 were 58 percent for the southern segment and 42 percent for the northern segment. This modest but significant shift in the respective shares of the southern and northern segments in this seven-year period suggests that the difference in total population among the two halves of the Corridor will further narrow through 2020. In this regard, it should be noted that several of the older boroughs and townships in the southern Corridor actually lost population between 1990 and 1997. These include Norristown Borough (which lost an estimated 741 persons), West Norriton Township (246), East Norriton Township (189), and Lansdale Borough (395). Among the municipalities in the northern segment of the Corridor, only Hatfield Borough experienced a population loss between 1990 and 1997, amounting to just 35 persons.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 6

TABLE 1. STUDY CORRIDOR DEMOGRAPHICS—POPULATION

Population Change in Population 1990-1997 1997-2020 1990 1997 2020 Absolute Percent Absolute Percent Montgomery County (Southern Segment) East Norriton Township 13,324 13,135 13,000 (189) -1% (1 35) -1% Lansdale Borough 16,362 15,967 15,650 (395) -2% (3 17) -2% Lower Gwynedd Township 9,958 10,364 10,850 406 4% 4 86 5% Lower Salford Township 10,735 12,087 15,200 1,352 13% 3, 113 26% Norristown Borough 30,749 30,008 29,050 (741) -2% (9 58) -3% North Wales Borough 3,802 3,809 3,650 7 0% (159) -4% Plymouth Township 15,958 16,028 15,149 70 0% (879) -5% Towamencin Township 14,167 16,279 19,300 2,112 15% 3, 021 19% Upper Gwynedd Township 12,197 13,751 13,750 1,554 13% (1 ) 0% West Norriton Township 15,209 14,963 15,257 (246) -2% 29 4 2% Whitpain Township 15,673 17,639 16,500 1,966 13% (1 ,139) -6% Worcester Township 4,686 5,876 9,000 1,190 25% 3, 124 53% Montgomery County (Northern Segment) Franconia Township 7,224 9,732 10,350 2,508 35% 61 8 6% Hatfield Borough 2,650 2,615 2,750 (35) -1% 13 5 5% Hatfield Township 15,357 16,080 16,900 723 5% 8 20 5% Montgomery Township 12,179 20,355 18,450 8,176 67% (1 ,905) -9% Salford Township 2,216 2,394 2,700 178 8% 3 06 13% Souderton Borough 5,957 6,340 5,750 383 6% (590) -9% Telford Borough * 4,238 4,485 4,367 247 6% (118) -3% Bucks County (Northern Segment) East Rockhill Township 3,753 4,659 5,957 906 24% 1, 298 28% Haycock Township 2,165 2,272 2,726 107 5% 4 54 20% Hilltown Township 10,582 11,900 17,363 1,318 12% 5, 463 46% Milford Township 7,360 8,607 13,026 1,247 17% 4, 419 51% Perkasie Borough 7,878 8,083 8,747 205 3% 6 64 8% Quakertown Borough 8,982 9,086 9,761 104 1% 6 75 7% Richland Township 8,560 9,648 15,323 1,088 13% 5, 675 59% Richlandtown Borough 1,195 1,335 1,187 140 12% (1 48) -11% Sellersville Borough 4,479 4,598 5,386 119 3% 7 88 17% Silverdale Borough 881 929 1,397 48 5% 4 68 50% Springfield Township 5,177 5,311 6,594 134 3% 1, 283 24% Trumbauersville Borough 894 897 1,159 3 0% 262 29% West Rockhill Township 4,518 4,673 6,945 155 3% 2,272 49% Southern Segment: 162,820 169,906 176,356 7,086 4% 6,450 4% Montgomery/North: 49,821 62,001 61,267 12,180 24% (734) -1% Bucks/North: 66,424 71,998 95,571 5,574 8% 23,573 33% Northern Segment: 116,245 133,999 156,838 17,754 15% 22,839 17% Montgomery County: 212,641 231,907 237,623 19,266 9% 5,716 2% Bucks County: 66,424 71,998 95,571 5,574 8% 23,573 33% Corridor Totals: 279,065 303,905 333,194 24,840 9% 2 9,289 10% * All of Telford Borough is included in the Montgomery County portion of the table. SOURCE: DVRPC Delaware Valley Data Reports (various dates)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 7

FIGURE 2. STUDY CORRIDOR DEMOGRAPHICS—1997 ESTIMATED POPULATION

Size of circle denotes total 1997 population. 30,000 residents 20,000 residents 10,000 residents 5,000 residents

Color of circle denotes 1990-1997 rate of growth/decline. Over 30% growth 21 to 30% growth 11 to 20% growth 0 to 10% growth 0 to 10% decline Over 10% decline

Subject Rail Lines SEPTA Rail Service

SOURCE: DVRPC Delaware Valley Data Reports (various dates)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 8

HOUSEHOLDS The number of households is closely related to population, but the number of households per unit of population changes over time and by location due to gradual but persistent changes in the average number of persons per household. The whole Corridor contained an estimated 113,955 households in 1997, an increase of 9,861 households over the 1990 total of 104,094. The average household size stood at 2.67 persons per household in 1997, which represented a slight decrease from 2.68 persons per household in 1990. There were, however, slight variations in household sizes among the northern and southern segments of the Corridor. In 1997, the average household size stood at 2.62 persons in the southern segment of the Corridor and at 2.73 persons for the northern segment. This difference in average household size appears to reflect the older age of the population and housing stock in the southern segment which was settled somewhat earlier during the post World War II boom years. Both segments of the Corridor, however, exhibit a gradual and sustained decline in average household size over time that has characterized similar suburban as well as urban areas over the past several decades. Thus, although the growth in households in both segments of the Corridor was generally proportional to changes in population, the percentage of growth in households was slightly higher than the percentage growth in population in both segments of the Corridor. The total estimated number of households residing in the full Study Corridor stood at 113,955 households in 1997. This figure represents a nine percent increase over the 1990 household count of 104,094, based on the 1990 U.S. Census of Population. The southern segment of the Corridor had a 1997 estimated household count of 64,837, which represented a gain of 3,025 households or a 4.89 percent increase over the 1990 household count of 61,812. The northern segment of the Corridor had an estimated 49,118 households in 1997, representing an increase of 6,836 households (16 percent) over the 1990 (42,282 households). This represents a growth rate over three times greater than the Corridor as a whole (see Table 2 and Figure 3). The southern segment’s share of the total number of households as of December 1997 was 57 percent, while the northern segment’s share was 43 percent. The comparable figures in 1990 were 59 percent and 41 percent, respectively. This shift suggests that the difference in the number of households will continue to narrow through 2020. Since Norristown Borough, West Norriton Township, East Norriton Township and Lansdale Borough all lost population in the 1990-1997 period, it is not surprising that the number of households residing in these municipalities also decreased. In absolute numbers, Norristown Borough experienced the greatest lost in the 1990-1997 time period (197 households), followed by Lansdale Borough (91), West Norriton Township (50), and East Norriton Township (24). In contrast, no community in the northern segment of the Corridor lost households between 1990 and 1997. Even Hatfield Borough—which experienced a small loss in population—did not experience a loss in households.

EMPLOYMENT The total estimated number of employees in the full Study Corridor stood at 203,538 persons in 1997. This figure represents an nine percent increase over the 1990 count of 187,042 employees based on 1990 U.S. Census of Population data. The southern segment of the Corridor from Norristown to Lansdale had an estimated 1997 employee count of 120,403, representing a seven percent increase over the 1990 count of 112,394 employees. The northern segment of the Corridor from Lansdale to Quakertown had an estimated 83,135 employees working in the area in 1997, representing an increase of about 11 percent over the 1990 count of 74,648 employees. In absolute numbers, the northern segment of the Corridor increased by 8,487 employees during the 1990-1997 time period compared to an increase of 8,009 employees in the southern segment (see Table 3 and Figure 4).

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 9

TABLE 2. STUDY CORRIDOR DEMOGRAPHICS—HOUSEHOLDS

Number of Households Change in Households 1990-1997 1997-2020 1990 1997 2020 Absolute Percent Absolute Percent Montgomery County (Southern Segment) East Norriton Township 4,976 4,952 5,307 (24) 0% 3 55 7% Lansdale Borough 6,672 6,581 6,878 (91) -1% 297 5% Lower Gwynedd Township 3,679 3,860 4,254 181 5% 3 94 10% Lower Salford Township 3,729 4,237 5,936 508 14% 1 ,699 40% Norristown Borough 12,187 11,990 11,932 (197) -2% (58) 0% North Wales Borough 1,472 1,486 1,574 14 1% 8 8 6% Plymouth Township 6,244 6,329 6,418 85 1% 8 9 1% Towamencin Township 5,202 6,029 7,647 827 16% 1 ,618 27% Upper Gwynedd Township 4,143 4,720 5,097 577 14% 377 8% West Norriton Township 6,334 6,284 6,741 (50) -1% 457 7% Whitpain Township 5,439 6,176 6,391 737 14% 215 3% Worcester Township 1,735 2,193 3,509 458 26% 1 ,316 60% Montgomery County (Northern Segment) Franconia Township 2,331 3,178 3,494 847 36% 316 10% Hatfield Borough 1,099 1,099 1,211 - 0% 1 12 10% Hatfield Township 5,829 6,140 6,814 311 5% 6 74 11% Montgomery Township 4,522 7,575 7,088 3,053 68% ( 487) -6% Salford Township 711 774 906 63 9% 1 32 17% Souderton Borough 2,359 2,531 2,408 172 7% ( 123) -5% Telford Borough* 1,704 1,815 2,273 111 7% 4 58 25% Bucks County (Northern Segment) East Rockhill Township 1,286 1,622 2,049 336 26% 427 26% Haycock Township 742 787 1,069 45 6% 2 82 36% Hilltown Township 3,568 4,087 6,029 519 15% 1 ,942 48% Milford Township 2,425 2,898 4,430 473 20% 1 ,532 53% Perkasie Borough 2,940 3,048 3,910 108 4% 8 62 28% Quakertown Borough 3,485 3,564 3,952 79 2% 3 88 11% Richland Township 3,219 3,667 6,328 448 14% 2 ,661 73% Richlandtown Borough 368 416 401 48 13% ( 15) -4% Sellersville Borough 1,662 1,729 2,091 67 4% 3 62 21% Silverdale Borough 293 313 484 20 7% 1 71 55% Springfield Township 1,858 1,925 2,590 67 4% 6 65 35% Trumbauersville Borough 288 292 406 4 1% 114 39% West Rockhill Township 1,593 1,658 2,642 65 4% 9 84 59% Southern Segment: 61,812 64,837 71,684 3,025 5% 6,847 11% Montgomery/North: 18,555 23,112 24,194 4,557 25% 1,082 5% Bucks/North: 23,727 26,006 36,381 2,279 10% 10,375 40% Northern Segment: 42,282 49,118 60,575 6,836 16% 11,457 23% Montgomery County: 80,367 87,949 95,878 7,582 9% 7,929 9% Bucks County: 23,727 26,006 36,381 2,279 10% 10,375 40% Corridor Totals: 104,094 113,955 132,259 9,861 9% 18, 304 16% * All of Telford Borough is included in the Montgomery County portion of the table. SOURCE: DVRPC Delaware Valley Data Reports (various dates)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 10

FIGURE 3. STUDY CORRIDOR DEMOGRAPHICS—1997 ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLDS

Size of circle denotes total 1997 households. 12,000 households 8,000 households 4,000 households 3,000 households

Color of circle denotes 1990-1997 rate of growth/decline. Over 30% growth 21 to 30% growth 11 to 20% growth 0 to 10% growth 0 to 10% decline Over 10% decline

Subject Rail Lines SEPTA Rail Service

SOURCE: DVRPC Delaware Valley Data Reports (various dates)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 11

The southern segment’s share of the total number of employees in the full Corridor in 1997 was 59 percent, while the northern segment’s share was 41 percent. The comparable figures in 1990 were 60 percent for the southern segment and 40 percent for the northern segment. In contrast to the modest but significant shifts in the share of population and numbers of households among the two segments of the full Corridor, there was very little change in employment shares from 1990 to 1997 between the two halves of the Corridor. However, it is important to note that two townships in the northern segment (Montgomery and Hatfield Townships) experienced considerable growth in employment from 1990 to 1997. Employment in these two communities grew by 4,681 jobs in that time period, accounting for a significant 55 percent of the growth of employment in the northern segment. This indicates that only 3,806 new jobs were created in the remaining northern segment municipalities from 1990 to 1997. This distribution of jobs as of 1997 is shown in Figure 4. It should also be noted that several of the older municipalities in the southern Corridor decreased in terms of employment opportunities between 1990 and 1997. These included Norristown Borough, which lost 637 employees, East Norriton, which lost 482 employees, and Lansdale Borough, which lost 204 employees. West Norriton Township, while not losing employment during this time period, had only 69 more employees in 1997 than in 1990. These employment statistics suggest that the townships of Plymouth, Whitpain, Upper Gwynedd, Montgomery, and Hatfield are particularly important employment centers in the Corridor. Although beyond the defined limits of the Corridor, Upper Merion Township was also identified as an important adjoining employment center. These municipalities appear to import a significant portion of their workforce from other communities, including the Study Corridor.

2.2.2. Existing Land Use Prior to World War II, most of the Study Corridor was undeveloped land, mainly devoted to agricultural production, with the exception of a series of older boroughs spaced out along the then operating commuter rail line to the Lehigh Valley. All of these older boroughs, with the exception of North Wales and Lansdale, were located in the northern segment of the Corridor. These included Hatfield, Souderton, Telford, Sellersville, and Perkasie, in addition to Quakertown. Historically, each of the boroughs located in the northern segment of the Corridor developed a dense, compact pattern of mixed-use development, typically focused on a passenger railroad station that, in most cases, remains largely intact today. The communities continue to collectively draw their identity from the nickname of the original railroad—the North Penn. Rail transit service also operated in the Corridor in the form of the LVT interurban railway, which operated between Norristown and Quakertown until 1951. In contrast to the railroad, however, the interurban did not spontaneously foster any significant development along its alignment in the southern segment of the Corridor. Following World War II, the increasing availability of the automobile led to the rapid suburbanization of a significant portion of the southern segment of the Corridor. This growth was particularly evident in townships immediately surrounding Norristown Borough (Plymouth, West Norriton, and Whitpain), which experienced rapid growth mostly in the form of low density single family detached dwellings in the first three decades after 1950. At the same time, the townships surrounding Lansdale Borough (Upper Gwynedd, Montgomery, Hatfield, and Towamencin) began to experience increased suburban development, albeit at a slower rate than the municipalities surrounding Norristown. The pace of development at the southern end of the Corridor began to slow in the 1980's as the pace of development in the middle of the Corridor around Lansdale began to accelerate. The latter-day shift in development to the North Penn area was influenced, in part, by the presence of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Interchange near Lansdale and improvements to PA Route 309.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 12

TABLE 3. STUDY CORRIDOR DEMOGRAPHICS—EMPLOYMENT

Employment Change in Employment 1990-1997 1997-2020 1990 1997 2020 Absolute Percent Absolute Percent Montgomery County (Southern Segment) East Norriton Township 7,737 7,255 9,600 (482) -6% 2, 345 32% Lansdale Borough 10,163 9,959 9,850 (204) -2% ( 109) -1% Lower Gwynedd Township 8,379 8,787 9,300 408 5% 5 13 6% Lower Salford Township 4,662 4,916 7,250 254 5% 2 ,334 47% Norristown Borough 16,559 15,922 16,600 (637) -4% 67 8 4% North Wales Borough 1,223 1,276 1,300 53 4% 2 4 2% Plymouth Township 19,460 22,399 31,049 2,939 15% 8 ,650 39% Towamencin Township 4,360 6,576 7,600 2,216 51% 1 ,024 16% Upper Gwynedd Township 13,030 13,954 19,000 924 7% 5 ,046 36% West Norriton Township 6,856 6,925 8,000 69 1% 1,075 16% Whitpain Township 17,316 19,162 20,300 1,846 11% 1 ,138 6% Worcester Township 2,649 3,272 4,100 623 24% 8 28 25% Montgomery County (Northern Segment) Franconia Township 5,187 5,903 6,400 716 14% 4 97 8% Hatfield Borough 2,008 2,213 2,050 205 10% ( 163) -7% Hatfield Township 15,584 15,947 19,449 363 2% 3,502 22% Montgomery Township 15,732 20,050 24,150 4,318 27% 4 ,100 20% Souderton Borough 3,380 3,531 3,400 151 4% (1 31) -4% Telford Borough * 2,205 2,224 2,248 19 1% 2 4 1% Bucks County (Northern Segment) East Rockhill Township 1,642 1,815 2,291 173 11% 4 76 26% Haycock Township 54 83 98 29 54% 1 5 18% Hilltown Township 3,302 4,872 4,137 1,570 48% ( 735) -15% Milford Township 1,424 1,617 3,074 193 14% 1 ,457 90% Perkasie Borough 3,375 3,681 3,276 306 9% (4 05) -11% Quakertown Borough 7,830 7,894 7,831 64 1% ( 63) -1% Richland Township 3,693 3,872 5,063 179 5% 1,191 31% Richlandtown Borough 179 209 186 30 17% ( 23) -11% Salford Township 330 369 450 39 12% 8 1 22% Sellersville Borough 5,043 4,837 4,922 (206) -4% 8 5 2% Silverdale Borough 237 270 226 33 14% ( 44) -16% Springfield Township 370 420 673 50 14% 2 53 60% Trumbauersville Borough 497 520 568 23 5% 4 8 9% West Rockhill Township 2,576 2,808 3,222 232 9% 4 14 15% Southern Segment: 112,394 120,403 143,949 8,009 7% 23,546 20% Montgomery/North: 44,096 49,868 57,697 5,772 13% 7,829 16% Bucks/North: 30,552 33,267 36,017 2,715 9% 2,750 8% Northern Segment: 74,648 83,135 93,714 8,487 11% 10,579 13% Montgomery County: 156,490 170,271 201,646 13,781 9% 31,375 18% Bucks County: 30,552 33,267 36,017 2,715 9% 2,750 8% Corridor Totals: 187,042 203,538 237,663 16,496 9% 34,125 17% * All of Telford Borough is included in the Montgomery County portion of the table. SOURCE: DVRPC Delaware Valley Data Reports (various dates)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 13

FIGURE 4. STUDY CORRIDOR DEMOGRAPHICS—1997 ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT

Size of circle denotes total 1997 employment. 25,000 jobs 15,000 jobs 10,000 jobs 5,000 jobs

Color of circle denotes 1990-1997 rate of growth/decline. Over 30% growth 21 to 30% growth 11 to 20% growth 0 to 10% growth 0 to 10% decline Over 10% decline

Subject Rail Lines SEPTA Rail Service

SOURCE: DVRPC Delaware Valley Data Reports (various dates)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 14

In Bucks County, the area surrounding Quakertown Borough has been steadily suburbanizing over the span of the past few decades. This development has proceeded at a slower overall pace and in a more fragmented physical pattern than that observed in Montgomery County (See Figures 5A and 5B). The overall pattern of development and current land use in the Study Corridor may be broadly described as follows: • The southern segment of the Corridor from Norristown to Lansdale (including Montgomery and Hatfield Townships) is fairly heavily developed. Extensive areas of low-density residential development surround the high-density mixed-use cores of the older boroughs of Norristown, North Wales, and Lansdale. • A major exception to this pattern in the southern segment of the Corridor is Worcester Township, which lags behind surrounding townships in terms of the development and the proportions of open space and agricultural land uses. • A second, albeit minor exception in the southern segment are the extensive grounds of the former Norristown State Hospital, located just north of the Borough of Norristown, that remain undeveloped and in agricultural use. • The Corridor is less extensively developed above Hatfield Township, up to and including Perkasie Borough. This area exhibits a consistent pattern of small scale new developments clustering around the older boroughs, but not spreading out and filling in all of the open land between established boroughs as is the prevalent pattern in the southern segment. • Above Perkasie Borough, a low range of hills separates the Quakertown area from the rest of the Corridor. These hills are largely undeveloped due to steep slopes, lack of public sewers, and poor soil for on-site septic systems. The area represents a major break in the pattern of urban land use associated with the old railroad line and PA Route 309. • The Quakertown area (physically separated from the rest of the Corridor by the band of hills noted above) exhibits a full range of land uses. This includes higher-density, mixed-use development in the older borough, and fragmented, small-scale, lower-density residential development in the surrounding townships. There is a significant amount of retail/commercial development along the PA Route 309 highway Corridor and a moderate amount of relatively low-intensity industrial development located in an extensive area north of the borough. • The only significant non-residential land use in the southern Corridor segment (other than the grounds of the Norristown State Hospital and agricultural areas of Worcester Township) consists of five moderately-sized shopping centers adjacent to US Route 202 in Norristown Borough and East Norriton and Whitpain Townships. • In the middle of the Study Corridor, non-residential land uses begin to be more prominent. There are several extensive industrial and office parks located in Upper Gwynedd Township, Lansdale Borough, and Hatfield Township—all generally associated with the existing network of older railroads in the area. • The largest concentration of retail/commercial land uses are found somewhat “off-line” from the axis of the Corridor, in Montgomery Township. Around the intersection of PA Route 309, US Route 202 and Horsham Road is the Montgomery Mall regional shopping center and a significant concentration of closely related secondary shopping facilities. • Along PA Route 309, in the less developed area between Hatfield Borough and Perkasie Borough, there are fairly extensive areas of low-density industrial development. A similar pattern of low intensity industrial development exists in the area north of Quakertown. • The Corridor between Hatfield and Perkasie Boroughs does not contain any large freestanding retail/commercial centers with two exceptions. A moderate sized shopping center is located northeast of Souderton Borough at the intersection of PA Routes 309 and 113, and another is located just north of Telford Borough, also near PA Route 309.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 15

FIGURE 5A. EXISTING LAND USE

[HARDCOPY OF MAP INSERTED SEPARATELY IN FINAL REPORT]

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 16

FIGURE 5B. EXISTING LAND USE

[HARDCOPY OF MAP INSERTED SEPARATELY IN FINAL REPORT]

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 17

In terms of the availability of land to absorb new urban development in the Corridor, the Quakertown area contains the largest supply of land available for development, relative to the extent of existing development in the area. This area is perhaps only 20 percent developed at this time. The northern segment of the Corridor from Hatfield Borough to Perkasie Borough also contains a substantial amount of undeveloped land outside the older boroughs that would be suitable for future urban development. This section of the Corridor is estimated to be only 40 to 50 percent developed at this time. Although the townships in the area surrounding Lansdale Borough and north of Norristown Borough are more fully developed (with the exception of Worcester Township), small scale sites for new and in-fill development are readily available. Despite the appearance that the communities in the southern segment are relatively built-up, the continuing pace of development in these more fully developed townships is evidence of the availability of sites for new smaller scale and higher density developments. In this regard, even the older, densely built-up boroughs will present ongoing opportunities for small-scale in-fill development and even redevelopment in the future.

2.2.3. Recent Development and Planning Activity

DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES The pattern of land uses in the Norristown-Quakertown Corridor, presented in two parts in Figures 5A and 5B, was prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission based on a careful interpretation of aerial photography that was flown in April 1995. These maps represent actual development on the ground as of the date of the photography, including developments actually or substantially under construction at the time. However, the development process is very dynamic in that at any point in time, there are typically many other development projects which are under consideration by developers and local municipalities which are not yet evident on air photos. The most recent air photos for the Corridor are over four years old, so it is important to be aware of the level and geographic distribution of proposed development activity in the Corridor in order to appreciate what projects are “in the pipeline.” Some projects have undoubtedly already been built, others have been approved by local municipalities but not yet built, and others are still under discussion. The best sources of information on proposed development activity are the development logs and summaries maintained by the county planning commissions. Each county maintains a chronological log of development proposals for each municipality within its jurisdiction, which is published as an annual summary of review activity. The records prepared by the county planning commissions are similar in that they summarize the number of dwelling units proposed to be built by type and the total acres of land area. Montgomery County prepares a similar summary for non-residential development expressed in terms of square feet of buildings and acres of land, while Bucks County includes a summary of building floor area only. Information on land areas must be gleaned directly from the logs of individual development proposals that Bucks County maintains for each year for each municipality. Annual development proposal data from each county for 1993 through 1998 were selected for analysis, 1998 being the latest year for which information is available. Also, most development projects proposed before 1993 would likely either be built and reflected in the available 1995 aerial photography, or would have been abandoned and no longer be relevant. It should be noted that, while the logs and summaries are generally accurate and complete, the data should only be used to obtain a general impression of the aggregate level and geographic distribution of recent development activity. The annual summaries prepared by the counties do not track the actual disposition of the proposed development projects at the municipal level. While many individual projects may be approved and built in due time, many others may not be approved or built.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 18

Therefore, the best use of the development activity information derived from the counties is to augment the 1995 Land Use Survey (Figures 5A and 5B) and to illustrate the geographic distribution and relative magnitude of recent development activity by municipality. Proposed residential development activity for the 32 municipalities in the Corridor is summarized on Table 4 in terms of the aggregate number of dwelling units and the approximate total amount of land area required for the proposed developments. This information is also depicted graphically in Figures 6A and 6B. Similar data for proposed non-residential development by municipality are also presented in Table 4 and Figures 6C and 6D. A review of Table 4 and Figures 6A and 6B permits a number of important observations about proposed residential development activity in the Norristown-Quakertown Corridor as follows:

• In terms of residential development, there are approximately 10,500 dwelling units proposed which would require about 9,290 acres of land for the Corridor as a whole or about 0.9 acres per dwelling unit. • Residential development proposals for 4,087 dwelling units, requiring about 3,242 acres of land within the southern part of the Corridor reflect a somewhat higher average density of 0.8 acres per dwelling unit. • The average density in the northern half of the Corridor, where 5,857 dwelling units are proposed on 5,289 acres, reaches 0.90 acres of land per dwelling unit. • Not surprisingly, the number of dwelling units proposed for most of the geographically smaller and more built-up boroughs is very modest when compared to the numbers proposed for the larger and less developed townships. With the exception of Perkasie, the range of proposed residential development activity in the boroughs is in the range of less than ten dwelling units in several boroughs to 219 dwelling units in Norristown. A surprising number of dwelling units (701) were proposed in Perkasie for the 1993-1998 time period. • The townships surrounding Norristown Borough (Plymouth, West Norriton and East Norriton) and the townships of Upper Gwynedd, Salford, West Rockhill, Haycock and Springfield all exhibit modest levels of proposed residential development activity. Activity ranged from 80 dwelling units in West Rockhill to 226 units in West Norriton. • The townships surrounding Lansdale Borough (Whitpain, Worcester, Towamencin, Lower Salford, Franconia, Hatfield and Montgomery) exhibit a more significant level of proposed residential activity, ranging from 301 dwelling units in Towamencin to 916 units in Lower Salford. The aggregate number of proposed dwelling units for the seven townships was 4,511 units—about 43 percent of the 10,521 units proposed for the whole Corridor. • A trio of townships clustered around Quakertown Borough (Milford, Richland and East Rockhill) exhibit a major concentration of proposed residential development in the Corridor. These three townships together had over 2,900 dwelling units proposed over the 1993-1998 time period, representing 28 percent of the 10,500 proposed new residential units for the Corridor as a whole. The pattern of proposed development activity in the Corridor is consistent with the existing pattern of land use presented in Figures 5A and 5B and as described in Section 2.2.2 of this report. Most proposed development activity shows in one of three areas: • In the “gap” area between the townships clustered immediately around Norristown and those clustered immediately around Lansdale; • In the less developed townships surrounding Lansdale but located at a somewhat greater distance from the borough; or • In the largely rural townships (plus Quakertown Borough). An examination of Table 4 and Figures 6C and 6D also reveal some notable amounts of proposed non-residential development activity and patterns of geographic distribution worthy of comment as follows:

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 19

• Overall, the amount of non-residential development proposed in the Corridor from 1993 to 1998 totaled about 14.5 million square feet of floor space. About 8.7 million square feet (60 percent) were proposed for the southern portion of the Corridor and about 5.8 million square feet (40 percent) were proposed for the northern portion. • The amount of non-residential floor space proposed for the Montgomery County portion of the Corridor totaled about 10.5 million square feet (73 percent). The non-residential floor space proposed for Bucks County amounted to about 4 million square feet (27 percent). • Within Montgomery County, 4.2 million square feet of non-residential development (40 percent of the county subtotal) was proposed in Plymouth Township. The combined proposals for Upper Gwynedd and Montgomery Townships amounted to 2.8 million square feet of non-residential floor space (26 percent of the county subtotal). These three townships together accounted for 67 percent of all non-residential development proposed in this part of Montgomery County from 1993 through 1998. • Reflecting the distribution of proposed dwelling units, the older boroughs in the Norristown- Quakertown Corridor represented a small share of the proposed new non-residential development. In some cases, such as North Wales and Salford Boroughs, there were no proposed non-residential development proposals. • Within Bucks County, the distribution of proposed non-residential development was highly concentrated in three townships (Richland, Milford and Hilltown). These three townships accounted for about 3.5 million square feet of proposed floor space (87 percent of the county subtotal). Richland Township alone accounted for about 1.8 million square feet (45 percent of the county subtotal). • Proposed non-residential development for the other Bucks County communities along the proposed rail line (Telford, Silverdale, Sellersville, Trumbauersville, Perkasie, Richlandtown and Quakertown Boroughs and East Rockhill, West Rockhill, Haycock and Springfield Townships) accounted for only 13 percent of the county subtotal. • The relationship between land area and proposed non-residential development projects varies widely. At one extreme, about 1.6 million square feet of floor space was proposed in Upper Gwynedd Township on only 109 acres of land. At the other extreme, in Franconia Township about 530,600 square feet of floor space was proposed on 475 acres of land. The quantities and geographic distribution of proposed non-residential development activity in the Corridor is generally consistent with the historic distribution of employment in the Corridor, exhibiting a bias toward the Montgomery County portion of the Corridor concentrated around Lansdale Borough. The sole exception to this pattern in the Bucks County portion of the Corridor is in the area surrounding Quakertown Borough in Richland and Milford Townships. The amount of proposed residential and non-residential development activity in the Corridor is impressive, clearly indicating an economically dynamic area. It is important to note, however, that the above summaries may overstate the actual amount of development presently taking place due to the nature of the source material for the data. Nevertheless, the overall picture of the distribution and relative intensities of proposed development activity within the 32 municipalities in the Corridor created by this analysis remains valid and presents a generally accurate impression of the scope of recent development activity.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 20

TABLE 4. STUDY CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY

Residential Non-Residential Dwelling Land Area Land Area Square Feet Units (Acres) (Acres) Montgomery County (Southern Segment) East Norriton Township 205 90 891,600 116 Lansdale Borough 32 5 243,800 177 Lower Gwynedd Township 331 371 114,300 28 Lower Salford Township 916 938 355,300 267 Norristown Borough 219 24 35,800 14 North Wales Borough 14 6 - 3 Plymouth Township 215 101 4,206,800 1,929 Towamencin Township 301 138 466,900 105 Upper Gwynedd Township 90 52 1,557,000 109 West Norriton Township 226 77 116,200 22 Whitpain Township 869 606 651,000 443 Worcester Township 669 834 107,700 172 Montgomery County (Northern Segment) Franconia Township 577 760 530,600 475 Hatfield Borough 5 3 64,800 14 Hatfield Township 377 274 450,000 266 Montgomery Township 802 447 1,198,000 282 Salford Township 1 1 - 12 Souderton Borough 157 28 11,600 3 Telford Borough* 76 446 6,900 8 Bucks County (Northern Segment) East Rockhill Township 959 416 101,600 123 Haycock Township 99 292 - - Hilltown Township 380 678 1,026,600 289 Milford Township 849 948 674,200 452 Perkasie Borough 701 149 144,600 74 Quakertown Borough 16 10 - 52 Richland Township 1,095 839 1,759,800 544 Richlandtown Borough 4 1 10,300 19 Sellersville Borough 55 20 14,800 13 Silverdale Borough 76 62 100,900 - Springfield Township 123 461 18,100 16 Trumbauersville Borough 2 1 - - West Rockhill Township 80 213 178,900 266 Southern Segment: 4,087 3,242 8,746,400 3,385 Montgomery/North: 1,995 1,959 2,261,900 1,060 Bucks/North: 4,439 4,090 4,029,800 1,848 Northern Segment: 6,434 6,049 6,291,700 2,908 Montgomery County: 6,082 5,201 11,008,300 4,445 Bucks County: 4,439 4,090 4,029,800 1,848 Corridor Totals: 10,521 9,291 15,038,100 6,293 * All of Telford Borough is included in the Montgomery County portion of the table. SOURCE: Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Development Logs and Summaries (Various Dates)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 21

FIGURE 6A. 1993-1998 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS

Size of circle denotes total proposed dwelling units 1100 dwelling units 660 dwelling units 440 dwelling units 220 dwelling units

Subject Rail Lines SEPTA Rail Service

SOURCE: Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Development Logs and Summaries (Various Dates)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 22

FIGURE 6B. 1993-1998 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACREAGE

Size of circle denotes total acreage of proposed development 950 acres 570 acres 380 acres 190 acres

Subject Rail Lines SEPTA Rail Service

SOURCE: Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Development Logs and Summaries (Various Dates)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 23

FIGURE 6C. 1993-1998 PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE

Size of circle denotes total square footage of proposed development 4.0 million ft2 2.4 million ft2 1.6 million ft2 0.8 million ft2

Subject Rail Lines SEPTA Rail Service

SOURCE: Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Development Logs and Summaries (Various Dates)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 24

FIGURE 6D. 1993-1998 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACREAGE

Size of circle denotes total acreage of proposed development 2000 acres 1200 acres 800 acres 400 acres

Subject Rail Lines SEPTA Rail Service

SOURCE: Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Development Logs and Summaries (Various Dates)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 25

VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND The pattern of existing land use in the Corridor, as depicted in Figures 5A and 5B, was compiled by the Delaware Regional Planning Commission based primarily on 1995 aerial photography. These land use maps include the usual full range of urban land uses and a series of categories of current use that collectively may be interpreted as indicating lands that may be available for future urban development. These land use categories are: • AGRICULTURAL • WOODED • VACANT2 The aggregate land area of the Study Corridor is 197,348 acres, 118,650 acres (about 60 percent) of which are undeveloped. The 12 municipalities that constitute the southern Corridor segment contain 24,209 acres of undeveloped land, about 39 percent of their total land area. The 20 municipalities that constitute the northern Corridor segment contain a greater proportion of undeveloped land—94,441 acres or 76 percent of their total land area. Table 5 presents a table of undeveloped land by municipality and a calculation of the percent of the total land area of each municipality that was undeveloped as of 1995. Figure 7 graphically represents the relative amount of undeveloped land in each municipality at that time. Undeveloped land in the Montgomery County portion of the Corridor amounted to 42 percent of its total land area in 1995. If Worcester, Lower Salford, Salford, and Franconia Townships were excluded from the calculation, the amount of undeveloped land in the remaining Montgomery County municipalities would represent only 29 percent of total land area. In contrast, undeveloped land in the Bucks County portion the Corridor amounted to 67 percent its of total land area in 1995. In Bucks County, the most significant concentrations of undeveloped land are in the municipalities surrounding Quakertown Borough (Hilltown, West Rockhill, East Rockhill, Milford, Richland, Haycock and Springfield). These seven communities together contain 78,262 acres of undeveloped land representing 66 percent of the total amount of undeveloped land in the entire Norristown-Quakertown Corridor. In Section 2.3.2 (Future Land Use), an order-of-magnitude projection of land area requirements for future residential and non-residential development for the 23 year period between 1997 and 2020 is presented. This set of calculations projects that approximately 4,400 acres of land will be required for urban development in the Norristown-Lansdale Corridor and that approximately 11,900 acres of land area will be required in the Lansdale-Quakertown Corridor. Combined, this results in a total Corridor requirement of 16,400 acres of land area over that 23-year time period. Comparing these projections to the inventory of undeveloped land suggests that only about 18 percent of the undeveloped land in the southern segment and 12 percent in the northern segment would be required to support projected development. Overall, projected land area requirements—based essentially on a continuation of present development practices and market trends—would total only about 14 percent of the land nominally available for development in the full Corridor.

CURRENT ZONING The current zoning in all of the municipalities in the Norristown-Quakertown Corridor is represented on Figures 8A and 8B. To prepare this composite map involved the following: • Acquiring the zoning maps and zoning ordinance texts for all 32 municipalities; • Reducing these maps to a common scale and tracing all zoning district boundaries onto a Corridor base map;

2 “Vacant” denotes land that is undeveloped but not wooded or currently used for agricultural activities.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 26

TABLE 5. 1995 UNDEVELOPED LAND

Undeveloped Land Undeveloped Total Percent Acreage Acreage Total Area Montgomery County (Southern Segment) East Norriton Township 1,078 3,904 28% Landsale Borough 120 1,984 6% Lower Gwynedd Township 2,303 5,952 39% Lower Salford Township 5,472 9,216 59% Norristown Borough 330 2,240 15% North Wales Borough - 38 0% Plymouth Township 956 5,376 18% Towamencin Township 2,220 6,208 36% Upper Gwynedd Township 1,457 5,184 28% West Norriton Township 931 3,776 25% Whitpain Township 2,604 8,256 32% Worcester Township 6,738 10,368 65% Montgomery County (Northern Segment) Franconia Township 5,554 8,832 63% Hatfield Borough 55 384 14% Hatfield Township 2,317 6,400 36% Montgomery Township 2,609 6,848 38% Salford Township 4,522 6,080 74% Souderton Borough 8 704 1% Telford Borough* 74 992 7% Bucks County (Northern Segment) East Rockhill Township 6,152 8,311 74% Haycock Township 11,532 12,620 91% Hilltown Township 13,072 17,395 75% Milford Township 11,911 18,124 66% Perkasie Borough 415 1,536 27% Quakertown Borough 154 1,024 15% Richland Township 10,628 13,461 79% Richlandtown Borough 46 160 29% Sellersville Borough 178 813 22% Silverdale Borough 123 307 40% Springfield Township 16,735 20,063 83% Trumbauersville Borough 124 256 48% West Rockhill Township 8,232 10,539 78% Southern Segment: 24,209 62,500 39% Montgomery/North: 15,139 30,239 50% Bucks/North: 79,302 104,608 76% Northern Segment: 94,441 134,847 70% Montgomery County: 39,348 92,740 42% Bucks County: 79,302 104,608 76% Corridor Totals: 118,650 197,348 60% * Telford Borough is entirely in the Montgomery County portion of the table. SOURCE: DVRPC Land Use Survey (1995)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 27

FIGURE 7. 1995 UNDEVELOPED LAND

Size of circle denotes total 1995 acres of vacant, wooded & agricultural land.

17,000 acres 10,200 acres 6,800 acres 3,400 acres

Subject Rail Lines SEPTA Rail Service

SOURCE: DVRPC Land Use Survey (1995)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 28

• Obtaining and reviewing the permitted land uses and the permitted intensities of use in all of the districts in each municipality; and Determining a generalized set of zoning districts applicable to all 32 municipalities so that composite zoning patterns in the Corridor could be effectively mapped. The widest variation in zoning regulations among the 32 municipalities occurs in residential districts, where close to 200 separate and distinct categories cover permitted densities from less than one to over 13 dwelling units per acre. In the composite map of current zoning presented in Figures 8A and 8B, these many districts have been grouped into just six categories based on a gradation of permitted density. These six categories are depicted in colors ranging from light yellow for the lowest density of less than one dwelling unit per acre to a medium brown for the highest density category of over 13 dwelling units per acre. The second most common zoning district among the municipalities was retail/commercial. In the full Corridor, there are about 75 separate and distinct retail or commercial districts of various intensities, not including office or employment centers of various kinds, which constitute close to another 40 separate districts. For the purpose of presenting a generalized picture of the current zoning pattern in the Corridor, all of these many variations of retail and commercial districts have been combined into one single category, represented by a bright red color, and all of the variations of office uses and other forms of employment centers have been similarly combined into a single category, represented by a salmon color. These generalized categories are shown on the maps. Most of the municipalities in the Corridor include some type of industrial or manufacturing district in their zoning ordinances, which has been represented on the composite maps by a purple color. Only about one-half of the municipalities have included formal institutional zoning districts, although it should be noted that institutional uses are commonly permitted uses in other zones, particularly residential districts, in most municipalities that do not identify separate institutional districts. Institutional zoning on the composite maps is represented by a light blue color. Less than one-third of the municipalities in the Corridor include some type of formal recreational or open space category among their zoning districts, but where they do occur they have been colored green on the composite maps. Only a handful of the municipalities in the Corridor, including Norristown and North Wales boroughs and Plymouth Township, include a mixed use or town center type district in their zoning ordinance. Where they do occur, these mixed-use districts are represented on the composite maps by an orange color. An examination was conducted of current zoning around potential new rail stations in the Study Corridor. The current zoning at six locations (Norristown, Lansdale, Hatfield, Telford, Perkasie, and Quakertown) was reasonably consistent with commonly accepted concepts for encouraging transit-oriented development. Zoning in these locations already encourages a mixture of retail, office, and higher density residential development that would be desirable to achieve to support increased transit ridership. The areas within one-half mile of these potential station locations could be made even more conducive to transit. This would be accomplished through fine tuning existing density regulations and parking requirements, and by strongly encouraging mixed use developments, perhaps in the form of a transit service district overlay zone. Two other potential station locations (East Norriton and West Point) exhibit zoning that is at least partially responsive to the introduction of transit service. Zoning near these locations permits either higher density housing (East Norriton) or a combination of commercial and industrial zoning that encourages and permits a concentration of employment (West Point). The current zoning at three other potential stations (Blue Bell, Franconia and Derstines) would need to be significantly modified to be more supportive of transit service, though not necessarily along the same lines as that suggested in the older boroughs. These stations are positioned to intercept traffic at strategic locations along major roads in the Corridor.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 29

FIGURE 8A. CURRENT ZONING

[HARDCOPY OF MAP INSERTED SEPARATELY IN FINAL REPORT]

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 30

FIGURE 8B. CURRENT ZONING

[HARDCOPY OF MAP INSERTED SEPARATELY IN FINAL REPORT]

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 31

This suggests future zoning in these locations to be particularly responsive to the need for automobile parking as well as encouraging some degree of transit-oriented development at the stations. This consideration is particularly pertinent to the potential terminal station at Shelly, where zoning changes would need to respond to the station’s intended role of intercepting commuters on PA Route 309. If a decision is made to restore rail transit service to the Norristown-Quakertown Corridor, each municipality should carefully reexamine and consider selectively revising its current zoning to make future development as transit-oriented as possible.

2.2.4. Existing Public Transportation Service Scheduled, common carrier public transportation in the Study Corridor currently consists of limited intercity bus, passenger railroad, and local bus services, in addition to a light rapid transit rail service (SEPTA Route 100) on the southern periphery of the Corridor.

INTERCITY BUS SERVICES The predominant intercity bus presence in the Lansdale-Quakertown portion of the Corridor is Carl R. Bieber Tourways, Inc., a private bus operation based in Kutztown. Bieber operates daily bus service between Reading and Philadelphia, which passes through the Study Corridor. Stops are made along PA Route 309 at Quakertown, Sellersville, Line Lexington, Colmar, Montgomeryville, North Wales, Glenside and five locations in North Philadelphia. The route terminates in Center City Philadelphia at the Greyhound Terminal (10th & Filbert Streets) with some trips extended to 30th Street Station. On weekdays, Bieber operates a total of five round trips between the Lehigh Valley and Philadelphia. Three southbound trips and one northbound trip are scheduled each morning, although only two of the trips are suitable for a Philadelphia commute (arriving at 7:35 am and 8:40 am). After a midday trip in each direction, the pattern reverses itself in the evening. Weekend service offers a reduced schedule of four round trips on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. According to the most recent figures reported by the operator, ridership in the Lehigh Valley-Philadelphia Corridor totaled 3,029 passenger boardings in March 1997, or about 100 passengers per day. Fares vary by stop and length of travel, and round-trip discounted tickets are available to a commuter. Service is operated exclusively with MCI over-the-road coaches. Bieber's fleet consists of MC-9 and MC34-102 A Carl R. Bieber Tourways bus from the coaches, which seat 46 passengers and 47 Lehigh Valley passes through North Philadelphia. passengers, respectively. Other intercity bus services operate in Study Corridor but unlike Bieber's service, their market focus is not specifically designed around local Corridor demand. These services travel on the Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (I-476) and therefore have little direct relevance to trips originating or terminating within the Study Corridor.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 32

PASSENGER RAILROAD SERVICES The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) provides public transportation service linking Philadelphia and the surrounding counties with an integrated network of over 200 bus and rail transit routes. SEPTA's Regional Rail Division (RRD) operates seven electrified commuter rail routes to over 153 stations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. SEPTA RRD Route R5 service extends as far north in the Study Corridor as Lansdale and Doylestown. SEPTA RRD Route R6 extends as far north as Norristown (which is also the terminus of a light rapid transit line through the western suburbs). SEPTA operates an extensive network of buses, trolleys and rapid transit trains in Center City Philadelphia, in addition to Regional Rail links to downtown employment centers, the University City area of West Philadelphia, and the Philadelphia International Airport. Regional Rail passengers with a Monthly or Weekly Trailpass may ride SEPTA's transit services at no additional charge. Amtrak connections are also available in Center City Philadelphia to the major metropolitan centers of the Northeast. As late as August 1981, SEPTA and its predecessors operated commuter rail service north of Lansdale on the Bethlehem Branch through the Upper Bucks and North Penn communities to the Lehigh Valley. SEPTA electric trains operate from Philadelphia as well as Lansdale and Doylestown. The term “Bethlehem Branch” is generically applied to the 32.5 miles of former Reading Company railroad line extending from Lansdale through Montgomery, Bucks, Northampton, and Lehigh Counties to South Bethlehem. Ownership of these facilities is currently divided between SEPTA and the Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS), successor to the Consolidated Rail Corporation, Inc. (Conrail). The southernmost 28.1 miles of the branch between “Dale” (the connection with the SEPTA Main Line, Doylestown Line and Stony Creek Line in Lansdale) and Hellertown is designated as the SEPTA Bethlehem Running Track. The remaining 4.4 miles of the line is designated as the NS Saucon Running Track for the short distance between Hellertown and Lehigh (the connection with the Philadelphia, Bethlehem & New England Railroad), and as the NS Bethlehem Secondary Track for the section between Lehigh and CP Bethlehem (the connection with the NS Lehigh and Reading Lines in South Bethlehem). The “Stony Creek Branch” is generically applied to the 9.9-mile former Reading Company railroad line extending from Norristown to Lansdale through Montgomery County. On the south end, the branch connects to the SEPTA Norristown Line at “Elm,” immediately south of Elm Street Station. On the north, the branch connects to the SEPTA Main Line at the aforementioned “Dale.” Historically, the Bethlehem Branch has linked the Study Corridor with Philadelphia through freight and passenger railroad service. The North Pennsylvania Railroad Company constructed the branch with the goal of connecting to the Great Lakes. Opened in 1857, the assets of the North Penn were subsequently acquired in 1879 by the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company (later simply the "Reading Company"). For many decades, the Bethlehem Branch served as a busy, double-tracked link in the Reading's network of intercity passenger, commuter, and freight train services. At Bethlehem, the branch connected with lines owned by the Reading and other railroads that permitted through operation of passenger services from Philadelphia to Wilkes- Barre, Scranton, Syracuse, Buffalo and Toronto.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 33

FIGURE 9. STUDY CORRIDOR TRANSIT SERVICES

SEPTA Services Regional Rail Lines Local Bus Lines (Routes 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98 & 99) Norristown Hi-Speed Line (Route 100) Proposed King of Prussia Spur Carl R. Bieber Tourways LVT Liberty Bell Route (Abandoned 1951)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 34

Intercity passenger service over the Bethlehem Branch was discontinued in 1961, although local passenger rail service continued for another two decades. After 1962, virtually all of the remaining passenger service was operated with self-propelled rail diesel cars (RDCs) manufactured by the Budd Company. A representative weekday schedule of local passenger service from 1965 is provided in Table 6. The timetable provides for four daily through round trips between Bethlehem and Philadelphia, with three additional round trips shuttling between Bethlehem and Lansdale, where connections could be made with Philadelphia commuter trains. The service required two RDC trainsets to operate and offered two trains in the peak commuting direction during each “rush hour.” There was an early morning train in each direction, two midday round-trips, an early evening round trip and one reverse peak trip in each peak period. Running times between Quakertown and Lansdale ranged from 22 to 28 minutes, with overall running times between Quakertown and Philadelphia ranging from 60 to 75 minutes, depending on which stops were made enroute.

TABLE 6. READING COMPANY BETHLEHEM BRANCH TRAIN SERVICE (1965) Northbound 365 313 321 373 325 385 329 MP Station AM AM PM PM PM PM PM 0.0 Philadelphia (Reading Terminal) c 7:30 12:25 c 4:08 c 8:50 24.4 Lansdale 5:30 8:06 1:11 3:15 4:48 5:43 9:36 27.1 Hatfield — 8:10 1:15 3:19 4:52 5:47 9:40 29.6 Souderton — 8:14 1:19 3:23 4:56 5:51 9:44 30.9 Telford 5:39 8:17 1:22 3:26 4:59 5:54 9:47 33.6 Sellersville — 8:21 1:26 3:30 5:03 5:58 9:51 35.0 Perkasie 5:45 8:24 1:29 3:33 5:06 6:01 9:54 40.2 Quakertown 5:52 8:32 1:37 3:41 5:14 6:09 10:02 47.6 Center Valley — 8:43 — 3:52 — — — 52.6 Hellertown 6:07 8:49 1:50 3:58 5:29 6:22 10:15 56.6 Bethlehem 6:15 8:55 1:58 4:06 5:38 6:30 10:23

Southbound 360 306 312 318 370 380 336 MP Station AM AM AM AM PM PM PM 56.6 Bethlehem 4:24 5:34 6:24 9:54 2:13 4:18 6:40 52.6 Hellertown 4:33 5:43 6:33 10:03 2:22 4:26 6:48 47.6 Center Valley — 5:50 — — — — — 40.2 Quakertown 4:48 6:00 6:48 10:18 2:38 4:41 7:03 35.0 Perkasie 4:56 6:08 6:56 10:26 2:46 4:49 7:11 33.6 Sellersville 4:59 6:11 6:59 10:29 2:49 — 7:14 30.9 Telford 5:03 6:15 7:03 10:33 2:53 4:55 7:18 29.6 Souderton 5:06 6:18 7:06 10:36 2:56 4:57 7:21 27.1 Hatfield 5:10 6:22 7:10 10:40 3:00 — 7:25 24.4 Lansdale 5:16 6:27 7:15 10:45 3:04 5:03 7:29 0.0 Philadelphia (Reading Terminal) c 7:07 7:48 11:30 c c 8:16 MP - Denotes "Milepost"; distance from Reading Terminal. c - Denotes a change of trains required at Lansdale for travel to/from Philadelphia. SOURCE: Reading Company Philadelphia Division Timetable, effective August 1, 1965

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 35

FIGURE 10. STUDY CORRIDOR RAILROAD FACILITIES

Electrified Rail Lines (Passenger Only) Active Segments Inactive Segments Non-Electrified Rail Lines (Passenger & Freight) Selected Active Segments Selective Inactive Segments SEPTA Norristown Hi-Speed Line Existing Main Line Proposed King of Prussia Spur LVT Liberty Bell Route (Abandoned 1951)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 36

Passenger rail service over the Bethlehem Branch was publicly subsidized after October 29, 1962, through the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Compact (SEPACT), which was followed by matching State and Federal aid programs in 1965. The Reading Company continued Bethlehem Branch service under a subsidy agreement with SEPACT (subsequently SEPTA) until the creation of Conrail in 1976. In April 1976, the Reading's physical assets as far north as Milepost 45.4 (Bucks-Lehigh County Line) and rolling stock associated with Bethlehem Branch service were transferred to SEPTA, while Conrail continued to operate passenger train service under contract to SEPTA. In June 1978, PennDOT sponsored an extension of Bethlehem Branch train service to Allentown over 2.7 miles of former Lehigh Valley Railroad trackage. Poor track conditions and existing operating rules made for a very slow trip, however, and the service was soon withdrawn due to insufficient ridership. In July 1981, Bethlehem Branch passenger rail service was abandoned north of Quakertown (the last station within SEPTA's jurisdiction) following the withdrawal of state operating assistance for rail services outside of SEPTA's jurisdiction. All passenger rail service ceased north of Lansdale in the following month over a conflict with Conrail regarding work rules for engine crews in non-electrified train service. Ridership on Bethlehem Line trains during the final years of passenger service is shown in Figure 11 in terms of total weekday boardings and alightings at stations north of Lansdale. As is apparent from the chart, most Bethlehem Branch ridership came from the stations in Bucks and Montgomery County. FIGURE 11. SEPTA ALLENTOWN/BETHLEHEM LINE WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP 1,400 Ridership (Center Valley through Bethlehem/Allentown) Ridership (Hatfield through Quakertown) 1,200 277

1,000 300 251 182 210

ship 878 800 848 789 797 140 733

600 634 Weekday Rider 400

200 Data Not Available - - May-78 Nov-78 May-79 Nov-79 May-80 Nov-80 May-81

Note: Ridership figures reflect total boardings and alightings at stations north of Lansdale. Source: DVRPC Commuter Rail Statistics Reports, Spring 1978-Spring 1981 Route R5 service at Lansdale and Colmar Stations currently represents an attractive commuting option for residents living in Upper Bucks and North Penn communities. Both stations have extensive parking facilities and Colmar Station (located directly on PA Route 309) has excellent highway access from the north. A license plate survey was conducted at these stations in 1997, the results of which are summarized in Table 7. About 53 percent of the cars parked in the station lots were registered at addresses in Bucks and Montgomery Counties in communities previously served by SEPTA train service (labeled “North Penn” in Table 7). Another ten percent of the licenses were registered at Lehigh and Northampton County addresses (labeled “Lehigh Valley). This distribution of data suggests an affinity between existing rail riders and extended rail

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 37

service, as well as hints at the possible latent demand for service among those who currently drive. TABLE 7. LICENSE PLATE SURVEY RESULTS AT COLMAR AND LANSDALE STATIONS

LANSDALE STATION COLMAR STATION Lehigh North Lehigh North Total Other Total Other Valley Penn Valley Penn Not Found 31 Not Found 18 15236 Pittsburgh 1 0 0 1 17122 Harrisburg 2 0 0 2 15241 Pittsburgh 1 0 0 1 18015 Bethlehem 1 1 0 0 16870 Port Matilda 1 0 0 1 18055 Hellertown 3 3 0 0 17055 Mechanicsburg 1 0 0 1 18073 Pennsburg 1 1 0 0 17362 Spring Grove 1 0 0 1 18914 Warminster 6006 18017 Bethlehem 2 2 0 0 18927 Hilltown 1 0 0 1 18018 Bethlehem 3 3 0 0 18935 Milford Square 1 0 1 0 18031 Breinigsville 2 2 0 0 18936 Montgomeryville 2 0 0 2 18036 Coopersburg 3 3 0 0 18944 Perkasie 15 0 15 0 18049 Emmaus 1 1 0 0 18951 Quakertown 8 0 8 0 18051 Fogelsville 1 1 0 0 18960 Sellersville 5 0 5 0 18052 Whitehall 2 2 0 0 18964 Souderton 3 0 3 0 18055 Hellertown 1 1 0 0 18969 Telford 4 0 4 0 18069 Orefield 1 1 0 0 18974 Warminster 1001 18102 Allentown 1 1 0 0 19440 Hatfield 2 0 2 0 18103 Allentown 2 2 0 0 19446 Lansdale 5 0 0 5 18104 Allentown 2 2 0 0 19454 North Wales 3 0 0 3 18330 Effort 1 1 0 0 Colmar Totals: 81 5 38 20 18464 Tafton 1 1 0 0 8% 60% 32% 18901 Doylestown 4 0 0 4 18910 Bedminster 1001 18914 Chalfont 3 0 0 3 SUMMARY OF BOTH STATIONS 18915 Colmar 2 0 0 2 Lehigh North Other 18936 Montgomeryville 1 0 0 1 Valley Penn 18940 Newtown 1 0 0 1 Total: 323 18944 Perkasie 6 0 6 0 Total Codeable: 274 28 145 101 18951 Quakertown 15 0 15 0 10% 53% 37% 18960 Sellersville 8 0 8 0 18964 Souderton 13 0 13 0 18969 Telford 9 0 9 0 18970 Trumbauersville 1 0 1 0 18974 Warminster 1001 19040 Hatboro 1 0 0 1 19140 Philadelphia 1 0 0 1 19145 Philadelphia 1 0 0 1 19320 Coatesville 1 0 0 1 19333 Devon 1 0 0 1 19401 Norristown 1 0 0 1 19403 Norristown 1 0 0 1 19407 Audubon 1 0 0 1 19422 Blue Bell 1 0 0 1 19426 Collegeville 2 0 0 2 19438 Harleysville 15 0 15 0 19440 Hatfield 40 0 40 0 19446 Lansdale 42 0 0 42 19454 North Wales 2 0 0 2 19473 Schwenksville 3 0 0 3 19474 Skippack 2 0 0 2 19504 Barto 1 0 0 1 19539 Mertztown 1 0 0 1 20854 Potomac, MD 1 0 0 1 Lansdale Totals: 242 23 107 81 11% 51% 38% Freight service on the Bethlehem Branch continued operating under Conrail without subsidy. Until 1981, the branch was an important line for the movement of iron ore, plus other raw materials and products between Bethlehem Steel and the Port of Philadelphia. As the density of passenger train service on the line south of Lansdale increased and the overall level of freight traffic to and from Bethlehem diminished, Conrail began diverting the remaining traffic via other routes between Bethlehem and Philadelphia. One lasting legacy of the heavy ore traffic (which

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 38 placed substantial demands on the track structure) remains substantially intact in the form of a double-tracked main line laid relatively recently with durable, heavy (130 lb.) rail. With the ore trains gone, only a diminishing level of wayside freight traffic remained on the branch. Reflecting the dwindling level of freight activity, Conrail proceeded in the 1980s to retire one of the two tracks (southbound Track #1), most of the automatic grade crossing protection, and the automatic block signal system. Track conditions subsequently deteriorated to the point that trains north of Lansdale must operate at restricted speed. This requires trains to operate at a speed not exceeding 20 mph, prepared to stop within half the range of the engineer's vision, short of another train, obstruction, or improperly lined switch, while looking out for broken rails. Conrail ceased using the Bethlehem Branch between Saucon Yard and the north side of Quakertown (MP 42.2) in the late 1980s, choosing to serve the remaining way-side freight customers on the branch with trains out of Lansdale. A 6.9-mile segment of the branch (from Hellertown to the Bucks- Lehigh County Line) was transferred to SEPTA ownership in the 1990s. In 1997, Conrail filed a petition with the Surface Transportation Board to discontinue freight service between Telford and Quakertown on the Bethlehem Branch (while continuing service between Telford and Lansdale). SEPTA, in turn, turned freight service on the affected segment over to East Penn Railways, Inc., a short line railroad operator headquartered in Bristol, Pennsylvania. In June 1999, Conrail’s assets were divided between NS and CSX Transportation (CSXT). NS acquired the Bethlehem area rail facilities and rights over the Stony Creek Branch. CSXT acquired rights over the SEPTA Main Line and the Bethlehem Branch as far north as Telford. The long-term freight service implications on the Bethlehem Branch, however, needs to be addressed now in the context of the more strategic issues associated with the recent break-up of the Conrail network by Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation. The Stony Creek Branch opened in 1874 and was leased to the North Pennsylvania Railroad the same year. The single-tracked branch line has spent much of its existence serving the freight transportation needs of predominately agricultural areas it passed through. The branch served an important secondary purpose as an alternate route for coal and ore shipments bound for the Lehigh Valley, bypassing more congested Philadelphia terminal facilities. Its slow, circuitous alignment coupled with closely-spaced grade crossings in Norristown limited its effective utility. Passenger service on the Stony Creek Branch was limited to one or two weekday round trips operating between Philadelphia and Doylestown via Norristown and Lansdale. A representative weekday schedule of local passenger service from 1934 is provided in Table 8.

LVT electric interubans connect across a street to Reading passenger railroad trains at Lansdale.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 39

TABLE 8. STONY CREEK BRANCH SERVICE (1934) Southbound Northbound Read Up Read Down 114 129 MP Station Present Day Reference AM PM Philadelphia (Reading Terminal) SEPTA Market East Station (approx.) 7:24 4:10 0.0 Norristown (DeKalb St) Norristown Transportation Center 6:44 4:54 0.5 Norristown (Main St) SEPTA Main Street Station 6:41 4:57 0.7 Norristown (Marshall St) Marshall Street 6:40 4:58 3.2 Hartranft Germantown Pike 6:32 5:05 4.1 Custer Township Line Road 6:30 5:07 5.8 Belfry Skippack Pike 6:26 5:10 7.4 Acorn Morris Road 6:22 5:14 8.3 West Point West Point Pike 6:20 5:16 9.2 Kneedler Sumneytown Pike 6:18 5:18 11.0 Lansdale SEPTA Lansdale Station 6:14 5:22 Doylestown SEPTA Doylestown Station 5:46 6:11 MP - Denotes "Milepost"; approximate track distance from DeKalb Street Station in Norristown. SOURCE: 1934 Official Guide to Railroads Passenger railroad service was abandoned in 1936 as passenger traffic migrated to the parallel and more frequent competing service offered by the light rail interurban trains of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company (LVT). LVT ran regularly scheduled electric train service between Allentown and Upper Darby via Quakertown, Lansdale, and Norristown. The line closely paralleled the Reading’s Stony Creek Line and Bethlehem Branch between Quakertown and Lansdale. South of Norristown, the LVT ran over the high-speed facilities of the Philadelphia & Western Railway (now SEPTA Route 100). Following a significant capital improvement program in the 1930s, LVT trains were scheduled to make the Norristown-Lansdale run in as little as 25 minutes. After train service was abandoned, LVT and its successors operated bus services over the route through the early 1970s.

LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICES Fixed-route, local transit service is currently provided only in the Montgomery County portion of the Study Corridor, reestablished in 1979 after a prolonged hiatus. SEPTA Bus Route 96 and, to a lesser degree, Route 94, represent the predominant local transit presence in the North Penn communities. Route 96 operates hourly service between Norristown and Telford via the US Route 202 Corridor, passing through the residential and commercial areas of North Wales, Lansdale, Hatfield, and Souderton Boroughs. Route 94 operates hourly service between Chestnut Hill (Northwest Philadelphia) and Lansdale. Both routes serve the Montgomery Mall (a regional shopping center in Montgomeryville) and link together major population and employment centers of Central Montgomery County. Route 96 terminates at the Norristown Transportation Center (NTC), which is a major transfer center for SEPTA rail and surface transit services. NTC is a hub for seven surface bus routes radiating out of Norristown (including Route 96) to King of Prussia as well as Pottstown, Collegeville, Phoenixville, Oaks, Ambler, and Conshohocken. NTC is also served by RRD Route R6 trains from Center City Philadelphia, and is the northern terminus for SEPTA Route 100, a light rapid rail line through the western suburbs to Upper Darby.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 40

2.3. Future Study Corridor Conditions

2.3.1. Future Demographics The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) has projected future population, households, and employment data for the municipalities in the Study Corridor for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020. These projections were prepared in the early 1990's following data from the 1990 U. S. Census of Population becoming available and have not been updated since. Although the DVRPC has recently begun the process of extending their projections to the year 2025 and updating the intermediate year projections as well, these new projections are not yet available. The DVRPC has, however, monitored annual building permit data and other types of data for all of the municipalities within Southeastern Pennsylvania as the basis for preparing more up-to-date population estimates from time to time. The most recent estimate of population, households, and employment by municipality is for December 1997. These DVRPC current estimates are generally considered to be fairly reliable as compared to the projections prepared in the early 1990's. A comparison of DVRPC’s population projections (published in April 1995) and 1997 population estimates (published in January 1999) reveals that some municipalities have grown more rapidly than anticipated. In some instances, 1997 population estimates approach or exceed 2000 projections. The description of future condition for the Study Corridor was drawn primarily from DVRPC Year 2020 projections of population, households, and employment, summarized below.

POPULATION According DVRPC projections for the Year 2020, the population of the entire Study Corridor will increase by 29,289 persons between 1997 and 2020 and will reach 333,194 persons by 2020 (see Table 1). This represents a modest increase of about ten percent over a period of 23 years (approximately 0.42 percent per year). This growth rate represents a slowing in the pace of development compared to the 1990-1997 time period when population increased by 24,840 persons (about nine percent) in just seven years (1.27 percent per year). Population projections for 2020 for the municipalities in the Corridor reveal an increasing shift of growth away from the southern segment of the Corridor and toward the northern segment. The southern segment is projected to grow by only 6,450 persons (about four percent) from 1997 to 2020, while the northern segment is projected to grow by 22,839 persons (about 17 percent) during the same time period.

HOUSEHOLDS DVRPC projections for the number of households in the Year 2020 suggests a continuing gradual decline in average household size from 2.67 persons per household in 1997 to 2.52 persons in 2020. This decline results in a slightly larger percentage increase in the number of households in the Corridor in 2020 as compared to the percentage of population increase, although changes in households will continue to be related to changes in population. Small but important differences in the average household size in the southern and northern segments of the Corridor are also expected to increase over the next 23 years. The 1997 household size of 2.62 persons for the southern segment and 2.73 persons for the northern segments is expected to decrease to 2.46 and 2.59 persons respectively by the Year 2020. The total number of households expected to reside in the Study Corridor in 2020 is projected to increase by 18,304 between 1997 and 2020 to 132,259, representing a total increase of 16.2 percent (see Table 2). However, this growth rate in not expected to be uniform throughout the Corridor. The number of households in the southern segment is projected to increase by 6,847 households (about 11 percent) from 1997 to 2020. In the northern segment, households are expected to increase by 11,457 households (about 23 percent) during the same time period.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 41

The projected growth of households in the Corridor is of direct relevance to estimating the demand for housing of various types and to forecasting the generation of future automobile and transit trips. The southern segment should see construction of 6,847 new dwellings units to keep pace with the projected increase in households (plus a small additional amount of replacement housing) from 1997 to 2020. This represents about 298 new dwellings per year compared about 432 new dwellings per year in the 1990-1997 period. In the northern segment, 11,457 dwelling units will need to be constructed from 1997 to 2020 to keep pace with projections, or about 498 new dwellings per year. Assuming that the average gross density of development for the 800 to 860 dwelling units expected to be built per year in the entire Corridor was 1.0 acres per dwelling unit, the land area required for this volume of residential development would be on the order of magnitude of 800 to 850 acres per year. To this figure would need to be added land area requirements for roads and commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational and other public uses that are linked to residential development. This would raise the total land use requirements for new development in the Corridor by perhaps another 60 to 75 percent overall to something in the range of 1,280 to 1,500 acres, or about two square miles per year. If this level of demand was sustained for 23 years, the aggregate land area requirements to accommodate new urban development in the Corridor would be on the order of 46 to 50 square miles. This amount of development would require much of the remaining undeveloped land in the Corridor as far north as the area surrounding Perkasie Borough as well as a significant portion of remaining open land around Quakertown Borough.

EMPLOYMENT Projected increases in employment in the Study Corridor from 1997 to 2020 are significant in absolute numbers and in relationship to the growth in households. The number of jobs expected to be located in the Corridor in 2020 is projected to be 237,663, which represents an increase of 34,125 jobs, or a 16.7 percent increase, over the 1997 base of 203,538 jobs. This projected increase of 34,125 jobs in the Corridor exceeds the growth in households, which are projected to increase by only 18,304 during the 23 year time period from 1997 to 2020. Assuming that the labor force participation rate among the adult population in 2020 would be about 70 percent, this number of households could reasonably be expected to generate only about 22,000 to 24,000 employed persons. This large excess of projected jobs over resident labor force indicates that the Corridor will likely be a significant net importer of workers from adjacent areas. In round numbers, for every two new employees moving into the Corridor in the next 23 years, one additional employee will work in the Corridor but reside somewhere outside of the Corridor (see Table 3). Also of major significance, the southern segment of the Corridor is projected to claim a disproportionately large share of the total employment in the full Corridor. Employment in the southern Corridor is projected to increase by 23,546 jobs from 120,403 in 1997 to 143,949 in the Year 2020 for an overall 19.6 percent increase. Employment growth in the northern Corridor is projected to increase by only 10,579 jobs—from 83,135 in 1997 to 93,714 in 2020—representing a more modest 12.7 percent gain. It is also instructive to look at the projected growth of employment in the Corridor from the perspective of the Montgomery County and Bucks County shares. The projected 1997 to 2020 change in employment for Montgomery Township, Hatfield Township, Hatfield Borough, Franconia Township, Souderton Borough, Salford Township and the Montgomery County portion of Telford Borough totals 7,910 new jobs. Adding these new jobs to the projected increase of 23,546 new jobs in the southern segment of the Corridor brings the total projected increase in employment for the Montgomery County municipalities in the Corridor to 31,456, which represents a dominant 92 percent of the total projected increase of 34,125 jobs for the entire Corridor. In terms of total projected employment, the Montgomery County municipalities in the Corridor are expected to be the location for 201,646 jobs in 2020 (85 percent of the total of

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 42

237,665 jobs for the full Corridor). This leaves the Bucks County municipalities with only 36,017 jobs (15 percent). This concentration of jobs in the Montgomery County portion of the Corridor, taken in combination with the fact that these Montgomery County municipalities are net importers of workers from areas outside the Corridor, indicates that the area from Lansdale to Norristown is a significant destination for employment and commercial services. A further conclusion that can be drawn from these data is that most of the municipalities in the Bucks County portion of the Corridor, as well as the townships of Lower Salford, Franconia and Salford in Montgomery County, function primarily as “bedroom communities” to a much greater degree than the municipalities in the southern segment of the Corridor. This concentration of projected 2020 employment in the Montgomery County portion of the Corridor is clearly evident in Figure 14.

2.3.2. Future Land Use The projected changes in population, households, and employment within the 32 municipalities that have been included in the Study Corridor are strong indicators of future land use changes. The broad pattern of future land development that is suggested by this data is as follows: • The southern segment of the Corridor will experience less residential development between 1997 and 2020 than will the northern segment. Of the overall projected increase of 18,304 households, the southern segment of the Corridor will attract only about 37 percent of the total, while the northern segment will attract approximately 63 percent. • Assuming an average density of about 1.0 acre per dwelling unit for 11,457 units in the northern segment of the Corridor, the land area requirement for residential development for the northern segment of the Corridor will approach 11,500 acres or about 18 square miles between 1997 and 2020. • Assuming a higher average density of 0.5 acre per dwelling unit in the southern segment of the Corridor, the land area requirement for residential development for 6,847 units will be approximately 3,500 acres or only about 5.5 square miles. • Land area requirements for non-residential development in the southern segment of the Corridor could be significant, but is less easily estimated. The projected increase of 23,546 jobs in the southern segment will be made up of a mixture of manufacturing, office, retail and other types of service employment at a wide range of densities from perhaps ten employees per acre for retail workers to 20 employees per acre for manufacturing and warehousing workers to 40 employees per acre for office or research workers. Assuming an average density of 25 employees per acre, the projected 23,546 new jobs will require approximately 935 acres of land or about 1.5 square miles of land area. • The land area requirements for non-residential development in the northern segment of the Corridor to accommodate 10,579 new employees at an average density of 25 employees per acre will be approximately 425 acres or about 0.67 square miles. Most of this demand will be in Montgomery and Hatfield Townships in Montgomery County, which are expected to capture 7,600 of the projected new jobs, leaving just under 3,000 jobs to be accommodated throughout the remaining Bucks County municipalities in the Corridor. These 3,000 jobs will require only about 120 acres of land at an assumed density of 25 employees per acre, or only about 5 acres per year for the next 23 years.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 43

FIGURE 12. STUDY CORRIDOR DEMOGRAPHICS—2020 PROJECTED POPULATION

Size of circle denotes total 2020 population. 30,000 residents 20,000 residents 10,000 residents 5,000 residents

Color of circle denotes 1997-2020 rate of growth/decline. Over 30% growth 21 to 30% growth 11 to 20% growth 0 to 10% growth 0 to 10% decline Over 10% decline

Subject Rail Lines SEPTA Rail Service

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 44

FIGURE 13. STUDY CORRIDOR DEMOGRAPHICS—2020 PROJECTED HOUSEHOLDS

Size of circle denotes total 2020 households. 12,000 households 8,000 households 4,000 households 3,000 households

Color of circle denotes 1997-2020 rate of growth/decline. Over 30% growth 21 to 30% growth 11 to 20% growth 0 to 10% growth 0 to 10% decline Over 10% decline

Subject Rail Lines SEPTA Rail Service

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 45

FIGURE 14. STUDY CORRIDOR DEMOGRAPHICS—2020 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT

Size of circle denotes total 2020 employment. 25,000 jobs 15,000 jobs 10,000 jobs 5,000 jobs

Color of circle denotes 1997-2020 rate of growth/decline. Over 30% growth 21 to 30% growth 11 to 20% growth 0 to 10% growth 0 to 10% decline Over 10% decline

Subject Rail Lines SEPTA Rail Service

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 46

2.4. Preliminary Station Locations Alignments for the possible rail transit services in the Study Corridor lie entirely along existing railroad rights-of-way. A new service in the southern segment of the Corridor, if warranted, would follow the alignment of the SEPTA Stony Creek Branch between Norristown and Lansdale. In the northern segment of the Corridor, the new service would follow the existing SEPTA Bethlehem Branch between Lansdale, Quakertown, and Shelly. Railroad passenger service on the Stony Creek Branch was suspended in 1936 and the interurban passenger rail service that closely paralleled it was abandoned in 1951. Neither service made a lasting impact on the present pattern of development in the southern segment of the Corridor. Commuter railroad service operated on the Bethlehem Branch to Quakertown and the Lehigh Valley until 1981. In contrast to the southern segment, the former passenger rail service in the northern segment of the Corridor had a more pronounced impact on present development patterns. A number of train stations built north of Lansdale physically exist today, although they have been vacant or converted to other uses since the suspension of passenger service. They often than not, they are at the core of the older boroughs. Many of these old station locations may be appropriate for new stations, although others may not. For planning purposes, a set of station locations was identified as shown on Figure 15. The factors used to determine the possible location of future passenger stations were varied and complex, but, in general, the preliminary locations for future train stations that have been identified are responsive to the following considerations: • Historic station locations and the availability of existing station buildings. • Convenient “walk in” service to older, dense, pedestrian-scale boroughs. • Service to new and/or emerging employment centers. • Suitable locations for large scale park-and-ride facilities near major radial highways. • Locations with good accessibility via important local roads and feeder bus service from automobile scale residential catchment areas. • Locations yielding reasonable average and minimum spacing between stations. • Adequate land available for stations, circulation elements and parking facilities. • Responsiveness to specific technical requirements such as locations on reasonably level ground and on straight section of track. Applying the above criteria, a preliminary selection of new train station locations were determined for the purpose of testing a series of alternative transit service pattern and to allow for some initial assessment of development opportunities as well as environmental and community impacts. Eleven preliminary locations for new stations north of the present Elm Street Station on the R6 Regional Rail line in Norristown have been determined. From south to north, the suggested locations are as follows: • East Norriton Station at Germantown Pike and Felton Road in East Norriton Township • Blue Bell Station at Route 73 (Skippack Pike) and North Wales Road in Whitpain Township. • West Point Station at Sumneytown Pike and West Point Pike in Upper Gwynedd Township. • Lansdale Station adjacent to or part of the existing Lansdale passenger train station at Route 63 (Welsh Road) in Lansdale Borough. • Hatfield Station at the former passenger train station at Market and Broad Streets in Hatfield Borough. • Franconia Station, near the intersection of PA Route 309 and Township Line Road in Franconia Township. • Telford Station at the former Telford Borough train station at County Line Road and Broad Streets in Telford Borough.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 47

• Derstines Station near the interchange between Route 309 and State Road in West Rockhill Township. • Perkasie Station at the former train station on Spruce Street in Perkasie Borough. • Quakertown Station at the former train station in the middle of Quakertown Borough, and • Shelly Station near the Route 309 and Cherry Road intersection in Richland Township. The preliminary station locations have been classified by type and primary function, as summarized in Table 9 and illustrated on Figure 15. The eleven preliminary station locations are spaced 2.4 miles apart on average, with the closest spacing found between Telford and Franconia (about 0.6 miles) and the longest spacing found between Perkasie and Quakertown (about five miles). Each station is assumed to have a primary and a secondary impact area about a half and one mile in radius, respectively. It is useful to note that the secondary impact areas of most of the proposed stations do not overlap because the stations are typically more than one mile apart. There are two exceptions: Hatfield Station to Franconia Station and Telford Station to Derstines Station, where these two pairs of stations are only 3,300 and 4,000 feet apart respectively. TABLE 9. PRELIMINARY STATION LOCATIONS AND TYPE Existing or Park-Ride Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Existing Station New Station Oriented Oriented Development Employment Location Location Station Station Opportunity Center East Norriton New √ √ Blue Bell New √ √ West Point New √ Lansdale Existing √ Hatfield Existing √ Franconia New √ √ Telford Existing √ Destines New √ √ Perkasie Existing √ Quakertown Existing √ Shelly New √ As shown in the matrix of station types above, five of the stations are located in the middle of older boroughs and are intended to serve primarily as walk-in stations, five are located in relatively undeveloped areas between older boroughs where they are intended to intercept traffic on major highways and to provide park-and-ride services, and one is located in a relatively undeveloped area at the northern limit of the train line. This last station at Shelly is intended to function as a terminal park-and-ride station located so as to intercept traffic from parts of Lehigh County traveling south on PA Route 309. Two stations, Derstines and Franconia, are also specifically intended to intercept traffic from PA Route 309, but at locations that are more southerly. The Blue Bell and East Norriton stations are intended to be accessible from their respective catchment areas primarily via Sumneytown Pike and Germantown Pike. All four of these stations also represent significant opportunities for future transit-oriented development.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 48

FIGURE 15. PRELIMINARY STUDY CORRIDOR STATION LOCATIONS

SEPTA Regional Rail Lines SEPTA Norristown Hi-Speed Line (Route 100) Bethlehem & Stony Creek Branches Intermodal Transfer Hub

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 49

3. DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES

3.1. Guidelines for Preliminary Alternatives Development The Scope of Work for the Quakertown-Stony Creek Rail Restoration Study called for the development and evaluation of three preliminary service alternatives. The Study Technical Advisory Committee set eleven objectives for the Study, two of which have direct bearing upon the functional and physical characteristics of passenger service alternatives: 3. Assess conditions in the rail corridor through Upper Bucks County and Central Montgomery County in two segments: • Shelly to Lansdale on the Bethlehem Branch. • Lansdale to Norristown on the Stony Creek Branch. 4. Identify low-cost, short timeframe rail transportation alternatives that would: • Enhance corridor access to Center City Philadelphia; • Enhance corridor access to King of Prussia area employment centers; and • Enhance travel between communities within the corridor. These study objectives were applied as the basis for guidelines for preliminary alternatives development. The preliminary alternatives developed would need to conform to the following key guidelines: • Consider potential combinations of the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Branches. This guideline defines the physical alignment of the alternatives and suggests consideration of whether one, both or portions of either lines justify reactivation. To optimize the analysis, each alternative should represent a paired set of improvements that maximize use of either existing rail facilities, but allow independent evaluation of their component parts. • Be confined to low-cost improvements that can be implemented on a short timeframe. The time and budget constraints implied by this guideline confine alternatives to those that maximize use of existing (or immediately pending) rail facilities, and that minimize the extent of new construction and right-of-way acquisition. Alternatives should eschew new or esoteric technologies inconsistent with present SEPTA operating practice or those technologies which would require research or development to deploy. Alternatives should comply with the present policies of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). • Provide access to Center City Philadelphia and King of Prussia. In addition to addressing intra-corridor travel needs, each alternative should enhance access for Study Corridor residents to employment opportunities both in Center City Philadelphia and in the King of Prussia area—the leading “edge city” of the Philadelphia region.

3.2. Development of Preliminary Alternatives Three preliminary alternatives were developed to address travel requirements of the Study Corridor based on the preceding guidelines. Each alternative consists of a pair of service strategies—one for the Bethlehem Branch, one for the Stony Creek Branch—that may or may not be operationally interdependent. For example, an alternative could consist of a Bethlehem Branch service that operates directly to Philadelphia via Jenkintown and a shuttle service that operates on the Stony Creek Branch (not operationally interdependent), or it could consist of a Bethlehem Branch service that operates directly to Philadelphia via Norristown over the Stony Creek Branch (operationally interdependent). The full range of all possible service alternatives in the Study Corridor that conform to the guidelines could easily exceed the three preliminary alternatives prescribed by the study work program. Therefore, the preliminary alternatives were crafted to supply unique combinations of Bethlehem Branch and Stony Creek Branch service strategies that would facilitate the

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 50 independent evaluation of its component service strategies during the course of the screening exercise. As such, the final Lead Alternative that emerges from the screening exercise may not be a pure reflection of any of the preliminary alternatives, but rather could consist of a re-pairing of subcomponents drawn from different preliminary alternatives. At this preliminary level of analysis, the most significant service strategy to consider is the choice between providing passengers on either branch with through service or connecting service to their destinations (the Philadelphia CBD or King of Prussia). The following discussion outlines the service strategies identified in each category as well as the issues and implications associated with each.

THROUGH SERVICE STRATEGIES Through service strategies offer passengers in the Study Corridor a "one-seat" ride to their destination. Connecting service, in contrast, requires passengers to interrupt their journey and transfer enroute to another vehicle (for example, another SEPTA regional rail train or bus). While transfers are often necessary to complete transit trips, travelers perceive them as a negative experience. Transfers introduce waiting and walking activities into the middle of a passenger’s journey, plus a degree of apprehension when there is uncertainty about the whereabouts of the connecting service. Transfers occurring in unsecured locations where passengers may be exposed to the elements can exacerbate the situation. The impact of the transfer experience can be reduced—to a degree—through the design of effective intermodal transfer facilities and aggressive schedule coordination strategies. SEPTA’s Norristown Transportation Center and “200-Series” bus routes are leading examples of good industry practice in that regard. Nevertheless, passengers clearly prefer having a through service travel option wherever possible.

THROUGH SERVICE STRATEGIES FOR CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA Through service strategies to Center City Philadelphia were identified for passengers on both Bethlehem Branch and Stony Creek Branch. The “direct path” from the Bethlehem Branch is via the SEPTA Main Line from Lansdale through Jenkintown and the Center City Commuter Connection (CCCC). The “direct path” from the Stony Creek Branch is via the SEPTA Norristown Line, which joins the SEPTA Main Line at 16th Street Junction in North Philadelphia. All existing train service on either “direct path” is electrically propelled, which presents a challenge for through service strategies as neither outlying branch line is electrified. While diesel trains can operate on the SEPTA Main Line, they are not permitted to stop at tunnel stations in the CCCC. Consequently, alternatives offering through passenger service to Center City require new services to utilize the CCCC electrification or employ operating strategies that avoid the CCCC. Through Service Strategies Using the CCCC (Series “A”). Service strategies that use the CCCC for Center City access entail new infrastructure, new kinds of rolling stock, or a combination of both. Many of these strategies were previously considered by a recent predecessor study, Amtrak Thruway Bus/Lehigh Valley Connections to Philadelphia Rail Services, conducted by the Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority (LANTA) that explored various Philadelphia- Lehigh Valley rail service strategies. A1. Electric Train Service to Philadelphia via SEPTA Main Line (Bethlehem Branch Electrification) The SEPTA commuter rail fleet presently consists exclusively of rolling stock powered by 11,500-volts of alternating current (AC) drawn from an overhead contact system (OCS). Extending the OCS north from Lansdale over the Bethlehem Branch would allow SEPTA’s present fleet of equipment to travel on the branch and provide direct service to Center City Philadelphia. This strategy would afford passengers with a seamless, fully integrated extension of SEPTA commuter rail network. Electrification represents a significant capital

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 51

investment, although implementation can be staged in incremental steps northward from Lansdale. This strategy was highly regarded by the predecessor LANTA study, although the magnitude of capital expense associated with its implementation relegated it to being defined as a longer-range improvement. A2. Dual-Power Service to Philadelphia via SEPTA Main Line (AC Catenary Option) Locomotives capable of drawing motive power from an OCS or from on-board diesel-driven electric generators could sidestep the fixed capital investment associated with extending electrification. This option is less flexible than extending the OCS since branch line service would rely on a dedicated set of unique locomotives for service.3 One domestic manufacturer (General Electric) currently offers to build dual-powered locomotives compatible with the 11,500vAC OCS employed by SEPTA and Amtrak. The proposed 3,300 horsepower locomotive is capable of pulling up to eight passengers coaches at speeds as great as 60 mph on flat, tangent track, as well as starting such a consist on a three-percent grade (the maximum grade in the CCCC is about 2½ percent). No such units, however, have been produced. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and NJ Transit both recently considered but rejected the dual-powered AC option, citing concerns about the excessive weight, low top speed (60 mph) and sluggish performance of the hypothetical locomotive. Both agencies also expressed concerns about committing to an untried piece of equipment that has not yet advanced to the prototype stage of development. The predecessor LANTA study discarded this strategy due to the uncertainty of equipment availability. A3. Dual-Power Service to Philadelphia via SEPTA Main Line (DC Third-Rail Option) Amtrak, MTA Metro North Commuter Railroad, and MTA Long Island Railroad employ dual- power locomotives to access underground terminals in New York City that draw 750-volt direct current (DC) from wayside third-rail systems in the terminal area, but otherwise operate under diesel power. Metro North recently paid $4.1 million apiece for new “Genesis” P32 AC/DM locomotives from General Electric, the same model Amtrak uses. The Electro Motive Division of General Motors recently delivered new DM30AC locomotives to Long Island for $4.5 million apiece. Under this strategy, at least two tracks through the CCCC would be equipped with a DC third-rail system in addition to the existing AC OCS. Over a half-century of operating practice at New York’s Pennsylvania Station demonstrates that the two power systems can co-exist. A CCCC third-rail system would extend from Temple University Station (the last station stop north of the tunnel) and Powelton Yard (immediately west of 30th Street Station)—3.8 miles one-way. Installing a third-rail on two CCCC tracks (most likely the center two tracks and its associated crossovers) would suggest a requirement for about 7.6 track miles of third rail electrification. The predecessor LANTA study discarded this strategy after due consideration of cost and operational complexities. A4. Transfer Branch-Line Coaches to SEPTA Electric Trains It is possible that diesel-powered branch line trains could exchange coaches with SEPTA trains hauled by electric locomotives at limits of the OCS network (i.e., Lansdale and Norristown). This strategy is not considered advisable for several reasons. Transferring coaches require a time consuming and labor intensive process of uncoupling and coupling coaches. Under FRA regulations, the change in train make-up requires both trains to perform a terminal brake test before departing, consuming additional time and introducing an element of uncertainty. During the coach transfer, passengers aboard the branch train as well as the SEPTA train would be sitting still. Reflecting these concerns, current North American commuter rail practice avoids transferring coaches between trains on a regular

3 A dual-power self-propelled rail car would provide similar benefits but no such car is currently available in the North American marketplace. Therefore, dual-power equipment considerations were confined to locomotive-hauled rolling stock options.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 52

basis, although Amtrak and VIA employ this practice on long distance, intercity train services.4 The Study Technical Advisory Committee selected the Strategy A1 (Electric Train Service to Philadelphia via SEPTA Main Line) as the through service strategy that best conformed to the guideline that alternatives represent low-cost, short timeframe improvements. Electrifying the Bethlehem Branch would be expensive, but the predecessor LANTA study suggested that the strategy was the most attractive to riders. An AC dual-power locomotive alternative was not pursued due to the speculative nature of its availability. A DC dual-power locomotive alternative was not pursued due to the combined capital costs of special rolling stock and duplicate electrification through the CCCC, as well as concern about introducing a radical departure from current SEPTA equipment and electrification practices.5 Through Service Strategies Avoiding the Center City Tunnel (Series “B”). Service strategies that avoid the CCCC for Center City access entail terminating trains at open-air stations on the periphery of downtown (e.g., 30th Street Station, Temple University Station). Under these circumstances, passengers bound for CCCC stations (Suburban Station and Market East Station) would be required to transfer to other SEPTA regional rail trains, diminishing most of the benefit associated with a through service strategy. The predecessor LANTA study grappled with these same issues and explored a number of strategies. The two leading strategies it considered that avoided the CCCC were: B1. Diesel Train Service to Philadelphia via SEPTA, CSX & Amtrak (“Eastern Bypass”) Diesel-powered branch-line trains would operate from Lansdale to Wayne Junction via the SEPTA Main Line. At Wayne Junction, trains would operate over approximately six miles of trackage belonging to CSX Transportation (CSX) through East Falls to Zoo Interlocking. At Zoo, trains would operate over the Amtrak 36th Street Connecting Track and the Northeast Corridor to terminate at the lower level of 30th Street Station. This route is not accessible from the Stony Creek Branch. The “Eastern Bypass” was used as a temporary detour during the SEPTA RailWorks™ project in 1992. Making the route a permanent link in the regional passenger rail network would require significant capital expenditures to upgrade and restore the alignment. Speed limits on the CSX segment range from ten to 25 mph and more than half of Bypass route is currently single-tracked. The existing right-of-way is wide enough to accommodate additional tracks, but CSX is a privately held company and access to its property should not be assumed. Some essential connections at Amtrak’s Zoo Interlocking would need to be restored6. B2. Diesel Train Service to Philadelphia via SEPTA & Amtrak (“Western Bypass”) Diesel-powered branch-line trains would operate from Lansdale to Norristown via the Stony Creek Branch and from Norristown to Shawmont via the SEPTA Norristown Line. East of Shawmont, trains would transition to the SEPTA Ivy Ridge Line via a new connection. Trains would proceed via the SEPTA Ivy Ridge Line, Amtrak Harrisburg Line, and Amtrak 36th Street Connection to the lower level of 30th Street Station.

4 The practice of exchanging coaches between regional trains is more common in Europe but the operating environment is not necessarily comparable to North America. Modal economics, rail staffing levels, work practices, coupler technology and safety regulations typical for European operations make the transfer of loaded passenger coaches between trains a more feasible practice. 5 Dual-power equipment options may be reconsidered in Phase Two if appropriate, depending on which strategies survive Phase One screening. 6 The connecting switches between the CSX and Amtrak "sides" of Zoo were removed since SEPTA ceased operation of the RailWorks™ trains in 1992. These switches and their associated signal systems would need to be restored.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 53

The ”Western Bypass” would require a more substantial investment than its eastern counterpart, including the restoration of 2½ miles of Ivy Ridge Line track, upgrading track speeds on the balance of the line, and building the new connector. Both previous bypass strategies require extensive capital investment and a cooperative relationship with Amtrak and, in one case, with CSX. The Study Technical Advisory Committee did not consider either strategy to meet the guideline confining alternatives to low-cost, short timeframe improvements. Three additional bypass strategies were identified during the course of the committee’s deliberations: B3. Diesel Train Service to Philadelphia via SEPTA & Amtrak (North Philadelphia Connection) Similar to the “Western Bypass,” diesel-powered branch-line trains would operate from Lansdale to Norristown via the Stony Creek Branch and from Norristown to 16th Street Junction via the SEPTA Norristown Line. At 16th Street Junction, trains would transition to the Amtrak Northeast Corridor at North Philadelphia Interlocking via an existing single-track connection. Trains would proceed via the Amtrak Northeast Corridor to the lower level of 30th Street Station. While this strategy avoids the extensive capital improvements associated with the two previous bypasses, it does require cooperation from Amtrak for access to a portion of the Northeast Corridor already congested with SEPTA and NJ Transit commuter trains. Furthermore, the present configuration of the North Philadelphia-16th Street Junction connection requires all branch-line trains to operate in both directions on a single track between North Philadelphia and Zoo—about three miles. B4. Diesel Train Service to Philadelphia via SEPTA (Temple University Transfer) Diesel-powered branch-line trains would operate from either Lansdale or Norristown to Temple University Station on the SEPTA Main Line. After discharging passengers, 7 southbound trains would proceed about /10 of a mile to new storage tracks constructed on the west side of the railroad at Brown on a remnant of the former Reading Terminal viaduct. The main advantages of this strategy are that it operates entirely on SEPTA rail facilities and that the transfer to Center City trains is more convenient for passengers at Temple University Station than at 30th Street Station. The strategy does require construction of one or more storage tracks at Brown connected to the SEPTA Main Line. Without further extensive track and signal improvements to the Main Line at Brown, all branch-line trains would need to operate in both directions on a single track between Brown and 16th Street Junction—about 1.8 miles. B5. Diesel Train Service to Philadelphia via SEPTA (Fern Rock Transfer) Diesel-powered branch-line trains would operate from Lansdale on the SEPTA Main Line to Fern Rock Transportation Center in the Olney Section of North Philadelphia. Southbound trains would cross over at Tabor Junction to the existing third platform-track on the east side of the Main Line. After discharging passengers, trains would pull farther down the sidetrack and lay over. Passengers bound for Center City could transfer to southbound electric trains or the Broad Street Subway. This route is not accessible from the Stony Creek Branch. The main advantages of this strategy are that it operates entirely on SEPTA rail facilities and that it requires no infrastructure improvements. Fern Rock is about seven miles from Center City with less frequent RRD connections for transferring passengers than at 30th Street or Temple University Station. No through-service strategy avoiding the Center City tunnel would be flawless. The Study Technical Advisory Committee selected Strategy B3 (Diesel Train Service to Philadelphia via SEPTA & Amtrak (North Philadelphia Connection) as the through service variant that offered the most optimal balance between advantages and disadvantages.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 54

THROUGH SERVICE STRATEGIES FOR KING OF PRUSSIA (SERIES “K”) In contrast to Center City Philadelphia, opportunities to provide the King of Prussia area with an effective through service are limited. One reason is that King of Prussia area development is more dispersed, with an employment density that is less than half that of the Philadelphia CBD (70.1 jobs per square-mile versus 148.4 jobs per square-mile, respectively). The suburban office place also lacks the underlying distribution network of transit services and pedestrian facilities that helps facilitate the circulation of Center City rail commuters. No through service strategy using conventional railroad technologies was identified that could provide direct service to King of Prussia. One strategy comes close, but requires a bus transfer at Port Kennedy Station (also referred to as “Valley Forge Park”) for the local distribution of passengers. Another through service was identified that was capable of serving King of Prussia directly, but it would employ a lightweight version of a diesel self-propelled railcar (designated “DMU” for “diesel multiple unit”). K1. Diesel Rail Service to Port Kennedy via SEPTA & NS Diesel-powered trains would operate on the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Branches to the Norristown Transportation Center, reverse direction, and proceed across the Schuylkill River to the Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) Harrisburg Line. Trains would proceed on the NS Harrisburg Line to the former Port Kennedy Station, underneath the Betzwood Bridge and US Route 422. Passengers would need to transfer to dedicated shuttle bus routes (similar to a SEPTA “200-Series” route) that would circulate southward through the King of Prussia Office Park and northward through the Valley Forge Corporate Center. The main advantage of this alternative is that it requires no infrastructure improvements other than upgrading the track on the Schuylkill River bridge. Its main shortcoming is that it relies on a cooperative relationship with NS. NS is a privately held company and access to its property should not be assumed. SEPTA is conducting a major investment study (MIS) in the Schuylkill River Corridor with service alternatives that would use the NS right of way west of Norristown. Some of the light rail alternatives under consideration by the MIS would provide a superior alternative means of access to the King of Prussia area, while some of the commuter rail alternatives would be complementary to the K1 strategy. K2. Diesel Light Rail Service to King of Prussia Plaza A spur of the SEPTA Route 100 Light Rapid Rail Transit line is under consideration as part of the MIS undertaken by SEPTA, permitting through service from the Norristown Transportation Center to King of Prussia Mall. In conjunction with this improvement, diesel- powered light rail trains would operate on the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Branches to the north side of Elm Street in Norristown. In Lansdale, trains would operate on their own trackage along the south side of the SEPTA Main Line (see Figure 16). In Norristown, trains would proceed on Markley, Airy, and Swede Streets in streetcar fashion to Washington Street, then ascend to a viaduct connecting with Route 100 at the Norristown Transportation Center (see Figure 17). The alignments through Lansdale and Norristown are similar to those employed by the former LVT trolley line prior to its abandonment in 1951. From the Norristown Transportation Center, the diesel light rail trains would operate over the Route 100 alignment and the new spur extension to King of Prussia. This strategy is predicated on the construction of the Route 100 King of Prussia Spur. The geometry of the street alignment through downtown Norristown requires using a lightweight vehicle that cannot mix with conventional regional railroad equipment, similar to that currently under production for the NJ Transit South Jersey Light Rail Transit System.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 55

FIGURE 16. FIGURE 17. K2 LANSDALE ALIGNMENT K2 NORRISTOWN ALIGNMENT

The Study Technical Advisory Committee concurred that through service strategies for the King of Prussia were limited. Neither King of Prussia through service strategy was determined to be so fatally flawed as to warrant no further consideration. Both represented a potentially viable service strategy consistent with the alternative guidelines, albeit highly dependent upon the outcome of ongoing major investment studies.

CONNECTING SERVICE STRATEGIES Connecting service strategies require passengers to transfer enroute to another vehicle (e.g., another SEPTA regional rail train or bus) to complete their journey. Asking passengers to change trains at Lansdale and/or Norristown would be the least expensive and lowest risk strategy to provide branch-line rail passengers with access to Philadelphia or King of Prussia. C1. Branch Line Shuttle Service Shuttle trains providing connecting service could operate between Shelly and Port Kennedy via Lansdale and Norristown, or between any pair of destinations. Shuttle trains would connect with Route R5 trains at Lansdale and/or with Route R6 trains at Norristown for passengers seeking access to Center City Philadelphia. Branch trains would be scheduled to arrive at the connecting point about five minutes before an inbound electric train was due to depart. In the opposite direction, branch trains would be

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 56

positioned at the platform before the outbound main line train arrived and through passengers could simply walk aboard the connecting train. Relatively simple platform improvements could be made at Lansdale and Norristown to minimize the inconvenience of the transfer.

3.3. Definition of Preliminary Alternatives Three preliminary alternatives were assembled to serve as a test bed for comparing the relative benefits and disbenefits of various service strategies for the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Branches. In accordance with the alternative guidelines and to provide an effective comparison of the maximum number of alternative subcomponents, each alternative was crafted to: • Explore a unique, different service strategy (through service vs. connecting service) for both the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Branches. • Explore a unique, different access strategy for branch line residents to access both Center City Philadelphia and the King of Prussia area. • Avoid duplication of service strategies or subcomponents that are functionally similar to those explored in other alternatives. The alternatives were developed employing the following conceptual themes: 1. Connecting service strategies on both branches, operationally independent of the existing SEPTA service. 2. Through service strategies on both branches, operationally independent of the existing SEPTA service. 3. Through service strategies on both branches, operationally merged with the existing SEPTA service. With the concurrence of the Study Technical Advisory Committee, various combinations of service strategies were matched to conceptual themes to yield the three preliminary alternatives for further analysis. The following pages provide a description and discussion of each preliminary alternative (also see Figures 18 through 20).

ALTERNATIVE 1: CONNECTING SERVICE, OPERATIONALLY INDEPENDENT OF EXISTING SEPTA SERVICE

SERVICE STRATEGIES Bethlehem Branch: Shuttle train service between SHELLY and WILMER via Lansdale, Norristown, and Phoenixville (Strategies C1 & K2). Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ACCESS TO CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA: Bethlehem Branch: Passengers transfer to SEPTA Route R5 trains at Lansdale. Stony Creek Branch: Passengers transfer to SEPTA Route R6 trains at the Norristown Transportation Center.

ACCESS TO KING OF PRUSSIA: Bethlehem Branch: Passengers transfer to SEPTA “200-Series” shuttles at Port Kennedy Station. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

MODAL TECHNOLOGY/REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT: Bethlehem Branch: Railroad/FRA Compliant. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ROLLING STOCK STRATEGIES/PROPULSION POWER: Bethlehem Branch: Diesel Self-Propelled Railcars. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 57

DISCUSSION: This alternative explores the operational, cost, and patronage impacts of a shuttle service operating on both branch lines that connects with but does not otherwise interact with the existing SEPTA RRD rail services. Analytically, it was originally conceived as a combination of: • A SHELLY-LANSDALE shuttle on the Bethlehem Branch, connecting with trains to Center City at Lansdale; • A LANSDALE-NORRISTOWN shuttle on the Stony Creek Branch, connecting with trains to Center City at Norristown; and • A NORRISTOWN-PORT KENNEDY shuttle on the NS Harrisburg Line, providing access from both branch lines to King of Prussia (via shuttle bus from Port Kennedy Station). As the third component of this alternative evolved, it was recognized that the magnitude of effort necessary to access the NS Harrisburg Line was disproportional to the relatively short trip from Norristown to Port Kennedy. Therefore, it was recommended that the alternative be extended a meaningful distance west of Port Kennedy in order to attract additional “backhaul” ridership and derive a benefit commensurate with the magnitude of effort. The alternative extends service a short distance west of Port Kennedy on the NS Harrisburg Line to Perkiomen Junction, the first opportunity to leave the NS main line. From Perkiomen Junction using existing freight rights-of- way, shuttle trains would proceed a short distance north to Oaks (an intercept point for traffic on US Route 422), then continue westward to Phoenixville. Wilmer is a potential site for a terminal park-ride site on the NS Devault Industrial Track, southwest of Phoenixville on PA Route 23. Shuttle train operations would mix with conventional railroad trains while in Lansdale and Norristown and while on the NS Harrisburg Line. Therefore, they would be under the jurisdiction of the FRA and require rolling stock compatible with FRA regulations.

ALTERNATIVE 2 THROUGH SERVICE, OPERATIONALLY INDEPENDENT OF EXISTING SEPTA SERVICE

SERVICE STRATEGIES: Bethlehem Branch: Through train service between SHELLY and 30TH STREET STATION, PHILADELPHIA via Lansdale, Norristown, and North Philadelphia (Strategy B3). Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ACCESS TO CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA: Bethlehem Branch: Direct service to Lower-Level 30th Street Station; Center City passengers transfer to SEPTA electric trains at Upper-Level 30th Street Station. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ACCESS TO KING OF PRUSSIA: Bethlehem Branch: Passengers transfer to SEPTA Route 99 buses at Norristown Transportation Center. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

MODAL TECHNOLOGY/REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT: Bethlehem Branch: Railroad/FRA Compliant. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ROLLING STOCK STRATEGIES/PROPULSION POWER: Bethlehem Branch: Diesel Self-Propelled Railcars or Locomotive-Hauled Coaches. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

DISCUSSION: This alternative explores the operational, cost, and patronage impacts of a through train service operating over both branch lines directly to Center City Philadelphia. The trains would mix with

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 58 conventional railroad trains through Lansdale and on the SEPTA Norristown Line between Norristown and North Philadelphia. Therefore, they would be under the jurisdiction of the FRA and require rolling stock compatible with FRA regulations. Trains would operate express between Norristown and 30th Street Station, overlaying the existing local service provided by Route R6 trains. In effect, this alternative would replicate many of the attributes of the very popular Norristown-Philadelphia express train service that were eliminated with the suspension of SEPTA service to Reading in 1981.

ALTERNATIVE 3 THROUGH SERVICE, OPERATIONALLY MERGED WITH EXISTING SEPTA SERVICE

SERVICE STRATEGIES: Bethlehem Branch: Through train service between SHELLY and 30TH STREET STATION, PHILADELPHIA via Lansdale, Jenkintown, and the CCCC (Strategy A1). Stony Creek Branch: Shuttle train service between LANSDALE and KING OF PRUSSIA via Stony Creek and Route 100 King of Prussia Spur (Strategy K2).

ACCESS TO CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA: Bethlehem Branch: Direct service to all Center City stations. Stony Creek Branch: Passengers transfer to SEPTA Route R6 trains at the Norristown Transportation Center.

ACCESS TO KING OF PRUSSIA: Bethlehem Branch: Passengers transfer to Stony Creek shuttle train at Lansdale. Stony Creek Branch: Direct service to King of Prussia.

MODAL TECHNOLOGY/REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT: Bethlehem Branch: Railroad/FRA Compliant. Stony Creek Branch: Same.

ROLLING STOCK STRATEGIES/PROPULSION POWER: Bethlehem Branch: Self-Propelled Railcars or Locomotive-Hauled Coaches (same as existing SEPTA RRD rolling stock). Stony Creek Branch: Diesel Self-Propelled Light Railcars (Type III DMU)

DISCUSSION: This alternative explores the operational, cost, and patronage impacts of extending existing SEPTA rail service north of Lansdale by electrifying the Bethlehem Branch. Service would be provided by the same type of trainsets SEPTA currently operates in RRD service. Electrification of the Stony Creek Branch was not considered warranted. Previous studies (such as the Norristown Integrated Transit and Development Study) determined that public investment in electrification on the Stony Creek Branch was neither economical nor compatible with local land uses. Therefore, a non-electrified light rail service strategy focused on King of Prussia was selected for this Corridor. The light rail component of this alternative would not be compliant with FRA regulations and therefore its trains could not mix with conventional railroad trains. Bypass street trackage was designed to accommodate the service through Lansdale and Norristown as previously described (see Figures 16 and 17).

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 59

FIGURE 18. ALTERNATIVE 1: DIESEL SHUTTLE SERVICE

Diesel Shuttle Train Service Shuttle train between Quakertown (Shelly), Lansdale, Norristown and Phoenixville (Wilmer). Connections to Philadelphia and King of Prussia. Other Electrified Railroad Lines Other Non-Electrified Railroad Lines SEPTA Norristown Hi-Speed Line Int ermodal Transfer Hub

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 60

FIGURE 19. ALTERNATIVE 2: DIESEL TRAIN SERVICE TO PHILADELPHIA

Diesel Train Service Diesel train service between Quakertown (Shelly), Lansdale, Norristown and Center City (30th Street). Connections to King of Prussia. Other Elect rified Railroad Lines Other Non-Electrified Railroad Lines SEPTA Norristown Hi-Speed Line Intermodal Transfer Hub

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 61

FIGURE 20. ALTERNATIVE 3: ELECTRIC TRAIN SERVICE TO PHILADELPHIA & DIESEL LIGHT RAIL SERVICE TO KING OF PRUSSIA

Electric Commuter Train Electric Train Service between Quakertown (Shelly), Lansdale and Center City Philadelphia. DLRT Connection to Norristown and King of Prussia. Diesel Light Rail Train (DLRT) DLRT Service between Lansdale, Norristown and King of Prussia. Other Elect rified Railroad Lines Other Non-Electrified Railroad Lines SEPTA Norristown Hi-Speed Line Int ermodal Transfer Hub

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 62

3.4. Initial Public Meetings Two public meetings were conducted to introduce possible service concepts, gather public comments, and gauge public interest in the restoration of passenger rail service in the Corridor. The three preliminary alternatives were presented in at both public meetings to facilitate discussion. The first meeting was held at Quakertown Borough on April 20, 1999. The second meeting was held in Hatfield Borough on April 22, 1999. A total of 92 people attended both meetings. Public response to the service proposals was overwhelmingly positive. A concern was raised that the service strategy using AC catenary-compatible, dual-power locomotives (Strategy A2) was dismissed prematurely. Since the availability of a dual-power locomotive could enhance the attractiveness of Alternative 2, the Study Technical Advisory Committee agreed to continue to consider the service strategy in parallel to the proposed strategy using conventional diesel locomotives.

4. SCREENING OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES

The objective of the screening process was to identify the lead alternative for detailed evaluation in Phase Two. The screening process considered generalized information concerning potential capital costs, operating costs, and patronage potential to select a single lead alternative to serve as a focus for more detailed evaluation.

4.1. Operating Analysis Operating analyses for the three preliminary alternatives were developed to identify realistic service scenarios to support capital and operating cost estimation. Each alternative employs some or all of the Bethlehem Branch and Stony Creek Branch. Alternatives were developed assuming a modal technology that would be appropriate for the market service design, limits of that technology and regulatory constraints. The markets that each alternative is designed to serve are not all the same. Some alternatives are designed to primarily service traditional radial suburb-to-center city trips. Other alternatives focus more on non-traditional suburb-to-suburb trips. Each alternative offers the potential, however, to serve both radial and non-radial trips. A summary of the alternatives is provided in Table 10. TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF RAIL SERVICE ALTERNATIVES Peak Trip Service New Total Total Miles Time Velocity Stations Stations Alternative 1: SHELLY-LANSDALE-NORRISTOWN WILMER RRD Shuttle SHELLY-NORRISTOWN Component 30.1 mi 55 min 33 mph 11 13 NORRISTOWN-WILMER Component 14.1 mi 23 min 36 mph 4 5 Alternative 2: SHELLY-LANSDALE-NORRISTOWN-PHILADELPHIA RRD Service SHELLY-PHILADELPHIA RRD 48.4 mi 81 min 36 mph 11 22 Alternative 3: SHELLY-LANSDALE-JENKINTOWN-PHILADELPHIA RRD Service LANSDALE-NORRISTOWN-KING OF PRUSSIA Diesel LRT Service SHELLY-PHILADELPHIA RRD 45.1 mi 90 min 30 mph 7 26 LANSDALE-KING OF PRUSSIA DLRT 16.8 mi 30 min 34 mph 5 7 Alternative 1 provides a diesel rail service that would run from Shelly to Wilmer via Lansdale, Norristown, and Phoenixville over a 44.2-mile route. The line would provide suburb-to-suburb service for communities along the line including Lansdale, Norristown, and King of Prussia. In addition to directly serving suburb-to-suburb circumferential service, the line would perform a feeder/distributor function for radial routes. It would provide connections to the SEPTA R6 line in Norristown, the SEPTA R5 line in Lansdale, and the Route 100 service to the 69th Street Terminal. The service could be operated with diesel push-pull locomotive and coach equipment

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 63 or diesel rail car equipment. For the purposes of the report, self-propelled diesel rail cars were assumed. The service would originate in Shelly, run southward on the Bethlehem Running Track to Dale Interlocking in Lansdale, run southward on the Stony Creek to Elm Interlocking on the SEPTA R6 line. From Elm, it would run south on the R6 line to the Norristown Transportation Center. This 30-mile leg of the trip would take approximately 55 minutes to complete. At the Norristown Transportation Center, the train would reverse its direction to move westward across the Schuylkill River to the NS Harrisburg Line, running past Abrams Yard. At Perkiomen, the service would divert from the Harrisburg Line onto the Perkiomen Industrial Track and run one and one-half miles to the Phoenixville Industrial Track. Running westward on the Phoenixville track, the service would bear south at Phoenixville onto the Devault line and run two miles to a terminal at Wilmer. This 14-mile leg of the trip would require 24 minutes to complete with only three intermediate station stops at Phoenixville, Oaks, and Port Kennedy. The two legs of the service, north of Norristown and west of Norristown could be operated independently or with run-through trains. It is envisioned that a substantial volume of passengers would transfer to R6 and Route 100 service at Norristown. This service would require a substantial infrastructure upgrade to the railroad north of CP Elm including: • Replacement and/or rebuilding of all existing track north of Lansdale • Replacement of all existing track between CP Elm and CP Dale • Replacement of portions of existing track between CP Elm and Wilmer • Restoration of signal system for a track north of CP Elm With improvements in place to allow for 60 mph maximum allowable speeds (with significant restrictions for curvature and densely settled areas), FRA compliant rail diesel cars could be used to operate a through local service from Shelly to Wilmer in approximately 85 to 88 minutes. It is envisioned that 40 weekday trains would service each leg of the line. There would be approximately 34 trains per day on weekends and holidays. This would provide peak headways of approximately 30 minutes and an hourly off-peak service frequency. Alternative 2 provides a diesel rail service that would operate on a 48.4 mile route between Shelly and 30th Street Station in Center City, Philadelphia. The service would be primarily oriented toward providing traditional radial suburb-to-center city transit service but could also serve intermediate trips along the line and would provide transfer connections to the SEPTA R6 line in Norristown, the SEPTA R5 line in Lansdale, and the Route 100 service to the 69th Street Terminal. The service could be operated with diesel push-pull locomotive and coach equipment or diesel rail car equipment. The service would originate in Shelly, run southward on the Bethlehem Running Track to Dale Interlocking in Lansdale, run southward on the Stony Creek to Elm Interlocking on the SEPTA R6 line, then run southward on the SEPTA R6 line. At North Philadelphia the service would leave the R6 line and join Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor for the last 4.5 miles to the lower level of 30th Street Station. Using the Northeast Corridor to access 30th Street allows the proposed service to use equipment with internal combustion power supplies avoiding the expense of providing electrification for the 29.4 miles between Shelly and CP Elm. This service would require a substantial infrastructure upgrade to the railroad north of CP Elm including: • Replacement and/or rebuilding of all existing track north of Lansdale • Replacement of all existing track between CP Elm and CP Dale • Restoration of signal system for a track north of CP Elm With improvements in place to allow for 60 mph maximum allowable speeds (with significant restrictions for curvature and densely settled areas), diesel rail cars could be used to operate an

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 64 express service that would run from Shelly to 30th Street in approximately 81 minutes. It is envisioned that this service would be primarily oriented toward peak period commuting with limited off-peak service. The conceptual schedule calls for approximately 24 trains per day on weekdays and 16 trains on weekends and holidays. Alternative 3 consists of two separate rail services, one using the Bethlehem Running Track and another using the Stony Creek Branch. • Alternative 3A, on the Bethlehem Running Track, consists of extending the existing SEPTA Route R5 trains from Lansdale a distance of 19.5 miles to Shelly. The service would be primarily oriented toward serving traditional radial commute trips between the northern suburbs and Center City Philadelphia. The service proposed in Alternative 3 would require a substantial infrastructure upgrade to the railroad north of Lansdale including: • Replacement and/or rebuilding of existing rail • Restoration of signal system • Installation of electric catenary to provide motive power for SEPTA Silverliners. With improvements in place to allow for 60-mph maximum allowable speeds using SEPTA Silverliner EMU equipment, local R5 trains that currently terminate in Lansdale could be extended to Shelly (or Quakertown). The running time from Shelly to Lansdale would be 30 minutes (90 minutes to 30th Street Station). The running time from Quakertown would be five minutes less. It is envisioned that up to 40 trains would operate each weekday with 34 trains on weekends. • Alternative 3B, a companion service to the Route R5 Extension, would use modern lightweight diesel rail cars to operate a 16.8-mile route between Lansdale and the King of Prussia Mall. The route would provide suburb-to-suburb service for communities along the line including Lansdale, Norristown, and King of Prussia. The route would operate over about ten miles of the Stony Creek Branch, about 1.2 miles of street running through downtown Norristown, and about 1.5 miles of the SEPTA Route 100 Rail Line. The route would operate over a proposed spur to the King of Prussia Mall (presently under consideration by SEPTA) for another 2.8 miles. Trains would require 30 minutes to travel from end to end. This service would require a substantial infrastructure upgrade to the railroad between Lansdale and Norristown in the vicinity of Elm Street including: • Replacement of all existing track and • Restoration of the signal system. South of Elm Street, the line would operate on new rail through the streets of Norristown until it reached the Norristown Transportation Center at the Schuylkill viaduct level and merged with the SEPTA Route 100 service. From the Norristown Transportation Center to the King of Prussia Mall, the new service would share track with the King of Prussia extension proposed for the Norristown Route 100 line. Maximum allowable speeds on the line would be 60 mph in places with significant speed restrictions for curves and street running. Service would be operated with a lightweight low floor diesel transit car similar to the units proposed for operation of the transit service between Trenton and Camden, New Jersey In addition to directly serving suburb-to-suburb circumferential service, the line would perform a feeder/distributor function for radial routes. It would provide connections to the SEPTA R6 line in Norristown, the SEPTA R5 line in Lansdale and the Route 100 service to the 69th Street Terminal. With a 30-minute end-to-end running time, it is envisioned that the line would operate with 20-minute service frequencies during the peak periods and 40-minute headways off peak.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 65

Approximately 58 trains would be operated each weekday. Off-peak headways would be operated on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays.

ALTERNATIVE REFINEMENT Each of three alternatives that were defined satisfied the analytic desire to test the use of both the Stony Creek and Quakertown Branches and to test alternative means of commuter access to Philadelphia and King of Prussia. The next section provides information as to the identification and development of station sites, service designs, and rail modes. In summary, they are as follows: • Station sites on the Stony Creek and Bethlehem rail lines were established with input and review from DVRPC and the counties. Station sites on the two study rail segments are the same across all alternatives. • Service designs and target markets for the three alternatives were developed to provide a broad spectrum of services for various target travel markets in the corridor(s). • Rail modes were matched with the service design and target markets to provide the most appropriate and efficient technology.

STATIONS The PB Team reviewed recent studies prepared by the Bucks and Montgomery County Planning Commissions pertaining to station location criteria and characteristics and specific studies of Corridor segments. Following the review of past studies, the PB Team established criteria for determining station locations in the Study Corridor including: • Historical precedents • Technical location and spacing requirements • Proximity to developed urban areas and employment centers • Accessibility from major highways • Availability of supporting local public transportation • Opportunities for future transit oriented growth • Availability of land for parking and circulation • Land ownership • Costs The recommendations of the review analyses are summarized in Table 11.

SERVICE DESIGNS AND TARGET MARKETS In developing alternatives, the planning team was interested in testing different rail services to serve a spectrum of urban travel markets. These markets range along a continuum, from the traditional rail transit suburb-to-center city core transit market, to the more radical use of rail transit to serve suburb-to-suburb trips. The traditional rail transit suburb-to-center city core transit market is a well-established market with the substantial volumes of peak traffic to and from a densely developed pedestrian friendly environment. Trip distribution within downtown is well supported by rapid transit and light rail services. For this market, parking at the downtown trip destination is only available at a premium price and highway congestion on the roadways available to this market is substantial. Given these circumstances, it is relatively easy to design a transit service that economically captures a substantial share of this travel market. Of the alternatives designed by the team, Alternative A, the R5 Extension, and Alternative 2, the Norristown Express, are primarily oriented toward serving this market.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 66

TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED STATIONS BY LINE, LOCATION & ALTERNATIVE Station Location Milepost Alternatives Comments SEPTA Bethlehem Running Track Shelly 43.7 1A, 2, 3A Park and Ride Quakertown 40.2 1A, 2, 3A Downtown local station Perkasie 35.0 1A, 2, 3A Downtown local station Derstines 33.0 1A, 2, 3A Park and Ride Telford 30.9 1A, 2, 3A Downtown local station Franconia 28.7 1A, 2, 3A Joint Development Opportunity Hatfield 27.1 1A, 2, 3A Downtown local station Lansdale 24.4 1A, 2, 3A, 3B Existing terminal station. Connect with R5 SEPTA Stony Creek Branch West Point 1.6 3B, 2, 1A Park and Ride Blue Bell 4.9 3B, 2, 1A Park and Ride East Norriton 7.5 3B, 2, 1A Park and Ride Street Running in Norristown Courthouse NA 3B Local Station SEPTA Norristown Line (R6) Main Street Station 17.7 2, 1A Local Station on Existing R6 Service Norristown Transportation 17.2 3B, 2, 1A, 1B Major Hub. Connect to R6 and Route 100 Center NS Harrisburg Line Port Kennedy 21.5 1B Connections to King of Prussia Mall NS Phoenixville Industrial Track Oaks 25.0 1B Downtown local station Phoenixville 26.9 1B Downtown local station NS Devault Track Wilmer 1.5 1B Downtown local station SEPTA’s Proposed Route 100 Branch King of Prussia Mall 5.1 3B Destination Station The successful North American use of rail transit to serve suburb-to-suburb trips is not established. Many of the circumstances that favor rail transit use within the radial market are not present for suburb-to-suburb trips. Destinations are seldom pedestrian friendly, supporting transit services for trip distribution are sparse or non-existent, free parking is usually available and often ubiquitous. However, in greater Philadelphia and the rest of the nation, roadway traffic congestion in circumferential corridors is reaching unmanageable proportions and leading planners to consider rail transit investments to help satisfy the demand for travel in these congested corridors. Of the alternatives designed by the team, Alternative 3B (Lansdale-King of Prussia light rail service) and Alternative 1 (Shelly-Norristown-Wilmer circumferential service) are most suited to accomodate this emerging transit market. It should be noted, however, that these alternatives could also serve as feeders to traditional radial services at “major hubs” such as Lansdale and Norristown.

RAIL TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY In developing the alternatives, the planning team considered a range of rail transit technologies and selected technologies for evaluation that would offer the greatest compatibility with the target travel market, host railroad, and project economics. Technologies proposed for the various alternatives include: • Electric Multiple Unit Rail Cars (e.g., SEPTA Silverliners)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 67

• Diesel Push-Pull Commuter Rail Trains (e.g., General Electric P32 “Genesis” Diesel-Electric locomotives with SEPTA JWC-II push-pull coaches) • Diesel Multiple Unit Rail Cars (e.g., Adtranz Penn Liners) • Diesel Lightweight Low-floor Transit Cars (e.g., GTW 6/2). The strengths, weaknesses, and applications of each of these rail transit modes are discussed below. Equipment assumptions are summarized on Table 12. Electric Multiple Unit Rail Cars. Electric Multiple Unit railcars (EMUs) are familiar to all riders of SEPTA’s regional rail system. The workhorse of that system is the self-propelled high voltage catenary powered rail car locally known as “Silverliners.” The EMU is SEPTA’s standard regional rail vehicle. It offers very good acceleration, a comfortable ride and is compatible with all federal rail crashworthiness and safety specifications. It is a clean non-polluting vehicle that is suitable for operation in tunnels and enclosed stations. EMUs, however, require overhead catenary for electric power and are relatively expensive to procure. In order to avoid the initial expense of electrifying the Stony Creek and Bethlehem segments only one alternative was developed that would use EMU technology. Alternative 3A represents a simple extension of conventional SEPTA EMU service for a distance of 19.5 miles from Lansdale to Shelly. Diesel Push-Pull Coach Commuter Rail Trains. Diesel Push-Pull commuter trains are the predominant rail technology in use for most North American commuter rail service outside the Middle Atlantic States. Diesel push-pull trains use a single locomotive to pull or push a bi- directional train generally consisting of three to nine passenger coaches. When operating in push mode, the engineer operates the train from a control cab in the leading coach controlling the throttle and brake by remote control. Diesel push-pull is not used by SEPTA but is commonly used by most North American commuter railroads. With push-pull there is no need to turn the train around or run the locomotive around to the leading end of the train to reverse directions. The use of diesel propulsion avoids the capital cost of building electric catenary, avoids the cost of catenary maintenance, and generally lowers the cost of rolling stock equipment acquisition. For medium length to long trains—more than four cars—diesel, push pull has the lowest capital and operating cost of any rail passenger mode. Diesel push-pull equipment meets all FRA safety specifications. Locomotives and coaches are produced by a very healthy community of competing suppliers leading to relatively high quality at competitive prices. The market for remanufactured locomotives is substantial leading to cost savings for transit agencies willing to use units that started on freight railways. However, diesel systems rely on internal combustion power plants that are generally incompatible with passenger operations in tunnels and enclosed stations. Diesel systems, especially those employing locomotives, are also much noisier than electric railway equipment. For short trains—three or fewer cars—the cost of the locomotive is spread over fewer passenger seats increasing the capital cost per passenger above other alternatives. The rate of acceleration for diesel push-pull is also less than that of self-propelled cars as the weight to tractive effort ratio is less favorable. Under emergency conditions, push-pull trains generally take longer to bring to stop. Alternative 2 could be operated with diesel push-pull equipment. Such an application could be attractive if forecast traffic volumes exceed 3,000 passengers per day. Diesel Multiple Unit Rail Cars. Diesel Multiple Unit Rail Cars, or DMUs, are self-propelled rail cars. As commuter rail has become the fastest growing segment of the transit industry, DMUs have reemerged as a viable alternative to a conventional train of locomotive-hauled of push-pull coaches. Compared with push-pull systems, DMUs offer a greater degree of operating flexibility and economy by providing enhanced capabilities to tailor propulsion systems and service capacity to meet passenger demand. A series of recent studies concluded that rail operating and

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 68 maintenance costs are lower with DMUs when trains are three cars long or less. DMUs also exhibit better performance characteristics, which can reduce running times and minimize impacts on other train operations. DMUs can also reduce the initial costs associated with new rail start projects, as the cost of a new four-car DMU trainset can be less than the comparative cost of a locomotive and four push-pull coaches. A major shortcoming of these DMUs, like the diesel push-pull option, is their inability to operate through the CCCC in Philadelphia. FRA compliant rail diesel cars pass all crashworthiness specifications established by the FRA for operation on the US general railroad network. Examples of such units may be found at Trinity Railway Express in Dallas, Cape May Seashore Lines in New Jersey, and NYS&W OnTrack in Syracuse. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hoping to procure a small fleet of similar units for operation of regional rail lines in the state over the next several years. However, there are many trade-offs between DMUs and locomotive-hauled trains. As noted above, a traditional locomotive-hauled train set can offer more efficiency as the size of the train increases. Since each DMU is treated as a locomotive in the context of FRA inspection requirements, maintenance expenses associated with DMUs are greater than a conventional push-pull coach. There can also be a greater economy of scale realized by locomotive-hauled trainsets if the motive power in passenger service is part of a large pool of motive power used and maintained for other purposes. Finally, there can be a greater “comfort level” among railroads with the traditional locomotive-hauled train set than dealing with the unfamiliarity of DMUs. Alternatives 1 and 2 were identified as potential applications for FRA-compliant DMUs. It was suspected that traffic volumes may not be great enough to warrant push-pull operations. Furthermore, DMU environmental characteristics (noise and pollution) would be more favorable than conventional diesel-electric locomotives. Diesel Lightweight Low-floor Transit Cars. Diesel Lightweight Low-floor Transit Cars represent an emerging passenger rail technology that manufacturers have begun to market in North America. These units are comparable to rapid transit (SEPTA Blue or Orange Line or the PATCO Lindenwold Line) or light rail (SEPTA Routes 100, 101, or 102), but operate with onboard internal combustion power supply instead of third rail or overhead wire electric sources. Compared with conventional DMUs discussed above, the operating and capital costs of these new offerings are generally less than heavier units. The new low floor models offer passenger comfort and convenience as well as economical ADA accessibility. However, the applications of these new technologies are limited by the internal combustion engine and by stringent regulatory and safety constraints. With diesel operations – passenger service in tunnels and enclosed terminals is curtailed. The FRA has strict crashworthiness and safety specifications that these units do not meet. FRA standards are based on the structural characteristics of diesel locomotives and freight cars. It is necessary to meet specifications designed for accident survivability when operating in mixed US traffic with heavy conventional railroad equipment. These standards do not apply when the diesel rail car operates on reserved tracks that are not shared with conventional railway equipment. Joint use of trackage with freight operations can be achieved through time-separating operations—e.g., passenger trains by day, freight trains by night. The new generation of lightweight diesel units do not offer acceleration rates that are comparable to conventional “pure” electric transit cars, available from electric trains. Consequently, these units are usually considered for relatively low-density applications, where an exclusive-use track network or timesharing of tracks can be accommodated. In nearby Camden and Trenton New Jersey, state officials are beginning to implement the largest North American application of this new equipment using Swiss designed vehicles supplied by Adtranz of Pittsburgh. Alternative 3B is a strong candidate for diesel powered lightweight low floor transit cars as the service will share track with the Route 100 light rail service and could be time separated from freight operations on the Stony Creek Branch.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 69

TABLE 12. ANTICIPATED RAIL MODAL TECHNOLOGIES BY ALTERNATIVE Alternative Description Modal Technology New service from Shelly to Norristown 1 Diesel Multiple Unit Rail Cars and Wilmer. Diesel Push-Pull Coach Commuter New service from 30th Street to Shelly 2 Rail Trains or via Norristown and Northeast Corridor Diesel Multiple Unit Rail Cars Service from 30th Street to Shelly via 3A Electric Multiple Unit Cars extension of SEPTA R5 service New service from Lansdale to King of Diesel Lightweight Low-floor Transit 3B Prussia via Norristown Cars

4.2. Engineering Requirements and Operating Characteristics With alignments, stations, and technologies for each alternative established, the planning team could then determine the engineering requirements and operating characteristics of each alternative. Using the planning team’s concepts for each service, rail operations specialists reviewed railroad engineering and operating documentation for each line. They determined the engineering upgrades required for passenger operations and determined the likely operating characteristics (travel times and operating speeds) that could be achieved from the preferred rail modal technology over the physical lines.

ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS Both the Bethlehem Running Track and the Stony Creek Branch are maintained at engineering standards acceptable for branch line freight operations but well below minimum requirements for competitive passenger operations. Upgrades are required. Engineering standards for these lines were generally based on North American operating practices for low-density (new start) commuter rail passenger operations as applied in the Northeast. These standards include: • Track that is FRA Class III, good for speeds up to 60 mph. • Speed restrictions for curvature based on speed/curvature tables. • Speed restrictions for high densities of grade crossings set at 50 mph. • Signal system that is centrally controlled for bi-directional running on single track with passing sidings. • Passing sidings on single-track line segments siding every five to eight miles (long passing sidings are often used to allow most trains to pass at speed). • Grade crossings protected by gates and flashers at all highway crossings (except for segments of in-street running). • Stations with 500-foot low platforms and mini-high platforms for ADA accessibility for conventional railroad services. These engineering requirements were used in two ways: 1) to provide input for determination of the operating characteristics of each alternative; and 2) to determine the capital expenditures that would be required to bring each line up to commuter rail standards.

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Operating characteristics of any rail service are grounded in the basic relationships between track conditions, maximum allowable speeds, station locations, and rolling stock performance. Performance is largely based on acceleration, braking, and passenger loading characteristics. The team used a commuter rail-scheduling program to determine the likely station-to-station running times that would be experienced by each alternative over the improved railway. Once running times are established it is possible to write schedules and estimate operating costs for

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 70 various frequencies of train service. Running times and service frequencies are also essential inputs to the development of credible ridership demand forecasts.

SPEED PROFILES AND OPERATING PERFORMANCE For each of the alternatives, the team applied the engineering standards to derive speed profiles for passenger operations. Based on speed profiles, station locations, and rolling stock performance characteristics, the team was able to estimate likely peak station-to-station running times for each alternative. Using the running times, the teams were able to develop potential weekday schedules for each alternative. The potential schedules were then used with graphic “string-lining” tools to determine where double-tracking or passing sidings would be required and to determine how many trainsets would be required to operate the potential schedule. Alternative 1 provides a diesel rail service between Shelly and Wilmer via Lansdale, Norristown, and Phoenixville over a 44.2-mile route. Like Alternative 2, the service would originate in Shelly, run southward on the Bethlehem Running Track to Dale Interlocking in Lansdale, run southward on the Stony Creek to Elm Interlocking on the SEPTA R6 line. From Elm, it would run south on the R6 line the Norristown Transportation Center. At the Norristown Transportation Center, the train would reverse directions to move westward across the Schuylkill River to the NS Harrisburg Line. At Perkiomen, the service would divert from the Harrisburg Line onto the Perkiomen Industrial Track and run one and one-half miles to the Phoenixville Industrial Track. Running westward on the Phoenixville track, the service would bear south at Phoenixville onto the Devault line and run two miles to a terminal at Wilmer. The two legs of the service, north of Norristown and west of Norristown could be operated independently or with run through trains. It is envisioned that a substantial volume of passengers would transfer to R6 and Route 100 service at Norristown. The service could be operated with diesel push-pull locomotive and coach equipment, or diesel rail car equipment. For purposes of this report, self-propelled diesel rail cars were assumed. Speed assumptions for the Bethlehem Running Track and Stony Creek Branch are the same used for Alternatives 2 and 3. Speeds on the SEPTA R6 line are based on existing conditions. It is not likely that significant upgrades would be required to support 60-mph passenger operations on the Harrisburg Line. The industrial tracks leading to Oaks, Perkiomen and Wilmer stations would need to be completely rebuilt to allow 60 mph operations with some significant speed restrictions due to curvature. The speed profile used information on the performance of the new generation of DMUs to estimate likely station-to-station running times that would be achieved by the Shelly-Lansdale- Norristown-Wilmer service. The service could be operated with diesel push-pull locomotive and coach equipment or diesel rail car equipment. For the purposes of this report, self-propelled diesel rail cars were assumed. Note that traversing the route from Shelly to Wilmer, trains would need to reverse ends each time they leave Norristown Station. A sum of 12 minutes was allowed for the station stop at Norristown including two minutes recovery time and ten minutes to change ends and make an FRA required brake test. Schedule calculations for a representative peak trip from Shelly to Wilmer are shown in Table 13.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 71

TABLE 13. ALTERNATIVE 1 RUNNING TIME CALCULATIONS Milepost Projected Departure Time Average Speed Shelly 44.2 0:00:00 -- Quakertown 40.7 0:04:58 57 mph Perkasie 35.5 0:12:11 51 mph Derstines 33.5 0:15:31 59 mph Telford 31.4 0:18:58 58 mph Franconia 29.2 0:22:45 50 mph Hatfield 27.6 0:25:48 50 mph Lansdale 24.9 0:31:56 39 mph West Point 23.1 0:35:02 53 mph Blue Bell 19.8 0:39:34 58 mph East Norriton 17.2 0:43:57 45 mph Main St Station 14.6 0:49:44 31 mph Norristown TC 14.1 1:04:12 13 mph Port Kennedy 9.8 1:10:11 54 mph Oaks 4.8 1:16:47 56 mph Phoenixville 2.8 1:20:03 55 mph Wilmer 0.0 1:28:08 49 mph The table indicates that through local service from Shelly to Wilmer would take approximately 88 minutes, including 14 intermediate station stops and a train reverse in Norristown. Service on the Wilmer to Norristown Leg would take approximately 24 minutes to cover 14 miles, making three intermediate stops. Service on the Shelly to Norristown leg would take approximately 54 minutes to cover 30 miles, making 11 intermediate stops. The two legs of the service could be operated independently. It is envisioned that 40 weekday trains would service each leg of the line. There would be approximately 34 trains per day on weekends and holidays. This would provide peak headways of approximately 30 minutes and an hourly off-peak service frequency. A potential service schedule was designed to facilitate connections between SEPTA R6 Regional Rail service, SEPTA Norristown High-Speed Line service and the new Shelly-Wilmer Shuttle. Schedules could be written so that eastbound and westbound trains pass at Norristown making good connections with the SEPTA R6 Regional Rail service in the direction of the dominant flow of traffic. Inbound movements to Philadelphia would be facilitated until shortly before noon when the direction of connections would be shifted to meet outbound Regional Rail trains from Philadelphia. The potential weekday schedule for the Shuttle is graphically portrayed in Figure 21. The diagram very dramatically illustrates how trains would meet and change ends at Norristown. This level of activity and coordination at Norristown would require the station to be expanded to at least three station tracks with completion of double tracking between Norristown and Elm Street. Elsewhere on the line other passing sidings would be required to allow trains to pass. Since the service would be designed to meet R6 trains in the predominant flow of traffic, the schedule dynamics would shift over the day increasing the number of passing sidings that would be required to make preferred connections at Norristown. Analysis of the stringlines indicates that four new passing sidings or double track sections would be required along the route. Each individual train set is color-coded to illustrate the cycling of equipment through the day. Equipment scheduling analysis from the stringlines indicates that six trainsets would be required to operate the proposed schedule.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 72

FIGURE 21. ALTERNATIVE 1 TIME-DISTANCE DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL SERVICE SCHEDULE

12:00 11:45 11:30 11:15 11:00 10:45 10:30 10:15 10:00 9:45 9:30 9:15 9:00 8:45 8:30 8:15 TIME OF DAY 8:00 7:45 7:30 7:15 7:00 6:45 6:30 6:15 6:00 5:45 5:30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 MILEPOST (Wilmer > Phoenixville > Oaks > King of Prussia > Norristown > Lansdale > Quakertown > Shelly)

Alternative 2 provides a diesel rail service that would operate on a 48.4 mile route between Shelly and 30th Street Station in Center City, Philadelphia. The service would originate in Shelly, run southward on the Bethlehem Running Track to Dale Interlocking in Lansdale, run southward on the Stony Creek to Elm Interlocking on the SEPTA R6 line, then run southward on the SEPTA R6 line. At North Philadelphia, the service would leave the R6 line and join Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor for the last 4.5 miles to the lower level of 30th Street Station. The speed profile uses the same assumptions about track speeds over the Bethlehem Running Track and Stony Creek Branches that were applied in developing Alternatives 3A and 3B. Once the service reaches the Norristown R6 line it will use existing track to reach 30th Street Station. For these track segments with present passenger service, existing speeds were assumed. Vehicle performance was based on the new generation of DMUs to estimate likely station-to- station running times that would be achieved by the new Shelly-Lansdale-Norristown Express. In developing the representative peak schedule shown below, it was assumed that Shelly trains would operate in express mode between Norristown and 30th Street Station. Operating in express mode over the last 18 miles of the 48-mile trip saves up to 18 minutes compared with current local service operated between Norristown and 30th Street. The service could be operated with diesel push-pull locomotive and coach equipment, or diesel rail car equipment. For the purposes of this report, self-propelled diesel rail cars were assumed. Schedule calculations for a representative peak trip from Shelly to 30th Street are shown in Table 14 below:

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 73

TABLE 14. ALTERNATIVE 2 RUNNING TIME CALCULATIONS Milepost Projected Departure Time Average Speed Shelly 48.4 0:00:00 --- Quakertown 44.9 0:04:58 57 mph Perkasie 39.7 0:12:11 51 mph Derstines 37.7 0:15:31 59 mph Telford 35.6 0:18:58 58 mph Franconia 33.4 0:22:45 50 mph Hatfield 31.8 0:25:48 50 mph Lansdale 29.1 0:31:44 39 mph West Point 27.3 0:34:57 53 mph Bluebell 24.0 0:39:37 58 mph East Norriton 21.4 0:44:08 45 mph Norristown TC 18.3 0:54:00 19 mph 30th Street 0.0 1:20:40 53 mph With improvements in place to allow for 60 mph maximum allowable speeds but with significant local restrictions for curvature and densely settled areas, FRA compliant diesel rail cars could be used to operate an express service from Shelly to 30th Street in approximately 81 minutes, making 12 intermediate stops north of Norristown. This service would be primarily oriented toward peak period commuting with limited off-peak service. The conceptual schedule calls for 24 trains per day on weekdays and 16 trains on weekends and holidays.

FIGURE 22. ALTERNATIVE 2 TIME-DISTANCE DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL SERVICE SCHEDULE 0:00

23:00

22:00

21:00

20:00

19:00

18:00

17:00

16:00

15:00

14:00

13:00 TIME OF DAY 12:00

11:00

10:00

9:00

8:00

7:00

6:00

5:00 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 MILEPOST (30th Street > Norristown > Lansdale > Quakertown > Shelly)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 74

The potential weekday schedule for the Shelly-Norristown Express is graphically portrayed in Figure 22. The contemplated service could be accommodated with three passing sidings—two between Quakertown and Lansdale and one in the area of Norristown. The stringline diagram does not show all traffic operating between Norristown and Philadelphia but the team did consult the current Route R6 timetable to ensure that the proposed service is compatible with current operations on the line. The team did not verify potential conflicts with SEPTA and Amtrak service on the Northeast Corridor, however. Should there be conflicts on this short segment and this alternative survives for further analysis, a cost-effective physical/operational strategy to support this service alternative could be devised. Each individual train set is color-coded to illustrate the cycling of equipment through the day. Equipment scheduling analysis from the stringlines indicates that four trainsets would be required to operate the proposed schedule. Alternative 3 consists of two separate rail services, one using the Bethlehem Running Track and another using the Stony Creek Branch. Alternative 3A extends the existing SEPTA R5 service from Lansdale to Shelly, a distance of 19.3 miles. The speed profile was developed using current SEPTA R5 schedules and information on EMU performance characteristics to determine the likely station-to-station running times that would be achieved if R5 service to Shelly was operated as an extension of all peak trains which terminate in Lansdale. Schedule calculations for a representative trip from Shelly to Center City are shown in Table 15 below:

TABLE 15. ALTERNATIVE 3A RUNNING TIME CALCULATIONS Milepost Projected Departure Time Average Speed Shelly 45.1 0:19:00 -- Quakertown 41.6 0:23:58 57 mph Perkasie 36.4 0:31:11 51 mph Destines 34.4 0:34:31 59 mph Telford 32.3 0:37:53 58 mph Franconia 30.1 0:41:36 50 mph Hatfield 28.5 0:44:35 50 mph Lansdale 25.8 0:49:03 48 mph Pennbrook 24.9 0:51:18 47 mph North Wales 23.8 0:54:05 53 mph Gwynedd Valley 21.4 0:58:01 48 mph Penllyn 20.2 1:00:32 55 mph Ambler 18.6 1:03:31 55 mph Fort Washington 17.3 1:06:09 55 mph Oreland 15.2 1:10:14 52 mph North Hills 14.4 1:12:26 55 mph Glenside 13.3 1:15:06 55 mph Jenkintown-Wyncote 12.1 1:17:31 50 mph Elkins Park 10.6 1:19:01 60 mph Fern Rock TC 8.4 1:25:01 60 mph Wayne Junction 6.6 1:29:43 54 mph North Broad Street 4.3 1:32:40 47 mph Temple U 3.5 1:34:49 44 mph Market East 1.4 1:40:24 37 mph Suburban Station 0.9 1:44:23 20 mph 30th Street 0.0 1:49:03 21 mph A potential weekday schedule for the R5 extension was developed assuming that trains that currently terminate at Lansdale would be extended to Shelly. Service to Doylestown and service

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 75 to points south of Lansdale would be unaffected. The potential schedule would provide 40 trains each weekday—20 in each direction. It is envisioned that up to 34 trains would operate on weekend days. FIGURE 23. ALTERNATIVE 3A TIME-DISTANCE DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL SERVICE SCHEDULE 1:00

0:00

23:00

22:00

21:00

20:00

19:00

18:00

17:00

16:00 DAY F 15:00

14:00 TIME O 13:00

12:00

11:00

10:00

9:00

8:00

7:00

6:00

5:00 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 MILEPOST (30th Street > Jenkintown > Lansdale > Quakertown > Shelly)

The potential weekday schedule for the R5 extension is graphically portrayed in Figure 23. This “stringline” is a time-distance diagram that depicts the scheduled position of every train on the line at every time. It is valuable for the development and evaluation of passenger rail schedules. Inspection of the string line allows the planner to identify and adjust schedules to make the most efficient use of crews, equipment, and physical plant. For single-track railways, like the Bethlehem Running Track and the Stony Creek, the stringline indicates the necessary locations for passing sidings as the points where time-distance graphs of different trains intersect. Since the schedule north of Lansdale is established by the time slots available on the SEPTA Mainline between Lansdale and 30th Street, it is not possible to set the schedule to minimize the need for passing sidings on the new trackage. Consequently, two long passing sidings would be required between Lansdale and Quakertown to accommodate the variety of opposing train movements that the schedule would require. Equipment scheduling analysis from the stringlines indicates that seven trainsets would be required to operate the proposed schedule. Over the course of the day, two non-revenue (deadhead) moves would be required for equipment positioning. Presently, six trainsets are required to offer peak service for Lansdale locals. Alternative 3B, a companion service to the R5 extension would use modern lightweight diesel transit rail cars to operate a 16.8-mile route between Lansdale and the King of Prussia Mall. A speed profile for the line between Lansdale and King of Prussia was developed anticipating maximum allowable speeds for new track to be laid in the railway between Lansdale and CP-Elm. It also anticipated average running speeds for street running between Elm and the Norristown Transportation Center. South of the Norristown Transportation Center, it reflects generalized

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 76 maximum allowable speeds for the Route 100 SEPTA light rail service. The speed profile used information on performance for the new generation of DMUs to determine likely station-to-station running times that would be achieved if the service between Lansdale and King of Prussia were operated. A representative northbound trip is shown in Table 16. TABLE 16. ALTERNATIVE 3B RUNNING TIME CALCULATIONS Milepost Projected Departure Time Average Speed King of Prussia Mall 1.5 0:00:00 -- Norristown TC 5.7 0:06:32 49 mph Courthouse 6.3 0:08:40 15 mph Elm Street 6.9 0:11:51 15 mph East Norriton 9.1 0:16:25 34 mph Blue Bell 11.7 0:20:43 46 mph West Point 15.0 0:25:10 58 mph Lansdale 16.8 0:30:06 46 mph The new service would stop at seven stations including three new stations on the Stony Creek and one new station in Norristown. With a 30-minute end-to-end running time, it is envisioned that the line would operate with 20-minute service frequencies during the peak periods and 40- minute headways off peak. Approximately 60 trains would be operated each weekday. Off peak headways would be operated on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. FIGURE 24. ALTERNATIVE 3B TIME-DISTANCE DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL SERVICE SCHEDULE 11:00 10:45 10:30 10:15 10:00 9:45 9:30 9:15 9:00 8:45 8:30 8:15 8:00 TIME OF DAY 7:45 7:30 7:15 7:00 6:45 6:30 6:15 6:00 5:45 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 MILEPOST (King of Prussia > Norristown > Lansdale)

The potential weekday schedule for the King of Prussia-Lansdale rail shuttle is graphically portrayed in Figure 24. The stringline indicates the necessary locations for passing sidings by simply referring to locations where the time-distance graphs of different trains intersect. It is likely that the contemplated service could be accommodated with two passing sidings on the Stony

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 77

Creek. The length of the passing sidings could be modest since the schedule of services would be much more symmetrical than the schedule for Alternative 3A. Each individual train set is color-coded to illustrate the cycling of equipment through the day. Equipment scheduling analysis from the stringlines indicates that four trainsets would be required to operate the proposed schedule.

4.3. Cost Assessment of Alternatives This portion of the report discusses the cost of developing and operating each of the alternatives selected for analysis.

4.3.1. Capital Cost Assessment To identify the capital costs associated with each alternative, requirements and costs for each of the following elements were developed. ROLLING STOCK • Electric Multiple Unit Rail Cars • Diesel Multiple Unit Rail Cars • Diesel Lightweight Low-Floor Transit Cars RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE • Track (including passing sidings, switches, and crossovers) • Signals • Automatic Highway Crossing Protection • Stations (not including land or parking) • Electric Power Supply and Catenary • Vehicle Maintenance Facilities and Specialized Structures It is important to note that this effort was not directed towards establishing absolute cost estimates for each alternative, but rather a relative assessment of key cost components that could be used as a consistent basis of comparison between alternatives. Uncertainties may be understated at this level of detail—particularly those associated with more mutable elements such as rolling stock, tunnels, bridges, track, and roadbed. Such uncertainties would not significantly affect the relative assessment of capital costs, however, as it is assumed they are equally applicable to each alternative and therefore cancel themselves out.

ROLLING STOCK REQUIREMENTS

RAIL TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY Rolling stock assumptions were developed for each alternative for cost estimating purposes upon consideration of the target travel market, host railroad(s), and project economic, as summarized in Table 17.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 78

TABLE 17. ROLLING STOCK ASSUMPTIONS Alternative Service Description Rail Modal Technology 1 Shelly-Wilmer Shuttle Diesel Multiple Unit Car 2 Shelly-Philadelphia via Norristown Diesel Multiple Unit Car 3A Shelly-Philadelphia via Jenkintown Electric Multiple Unit Car 3B Lansdale-King of Prussia via Norristown Lightweight Diesel Transit Car

FLEET SIZE CALCULATIONS Operations planning analyses were conducted to estimate the appropriate fleet size for each alternative. Relative ridership assessments (see Table 18) for each alternative were paired with the anticipated service schedules to estimate a possible number of vehicles required to accommodate peak demand (ridership assessment techniques are discussed in Section 5 of this report). TABLE 18. PROSPECTIVE WEEKDAY INBOUND PEAK BOARDINGS Alternative To Center City To King of Prussia Total Boarding 1 1,191 436 1,628 2 1,279 446 1,727 3A 1,116 623 1,739 3B 158 7907 948 Peak boardings were determined by assigning 70% of the total inbound boardings to the AM Peak. Typically, in transit, the morning peak is more pronounced than the afternoon peak. Consequently, it generally defines vehicle requirements. Referring to the operating plan for each alternative, it was possible to determine the number of morning peak direction trains envisioned for each service. Assuming cars could be acquired with a capacity of 125 passengers (e.g., 3-2 seating). The average length of each peak train was estimated as shown in Table 19. Fleet size calculations assigned the average train length (cars per train) to the number of train sets determined necessary to operate peak service at the desired service frequency.

TABLE 19. ROLLING STOCK CALCULATIONS Peak Average AM Peak Cars per Peak Alternate Train Load per Spares Total Fleet Boardings Train Vehicles Req’ts Train 1 1,139 6 190 2 12 2 14 2 1,208 4 302 3 12 2 14 3 1,445 13 -- 1 11 5 16 3A 781 7 112 1 7 1 8 3B 664 6 111 1 4 4 8

ESTIMATED VEHICLE ACQUISITION COSTS There are few recent North American applications of the Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) technologies and manufacturers are understandably reluctant to provide casual price quotes for new products. Nevertheless, the PB team assembled unit costs for each of the subject rail technologies from the limited pool of existing and pending rolling stock acquisition projects, as outlined in Table 20.

7 Includes R5 boardings bound for King of Prussia.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 79

TABLE 20. ROLLING STOCK UNIT COSTS Rail Modal Technology Alternatives Unit Costs Diesel Multiple Unit Car 1, 2 $2.5 million Electric Multiple Unit Car 3A $3.0 million Lightweight Diesel Transit Car 3B $2.2 million Applying the unit costs in Table 20 to the anticipated fleet requirements derived in Table 19 yields a relative assessment of rolling stock acquisition costs as summarized in Table 21.

TABLE 21. ASSESSMENT OF ROLLING STOCK ACQUISITION COSTS Peak Total Acquisition Alternative Spares Vehicles Fleet Cost 1 12 2 14 $ 35.0 million 2 12 2 14 $ 35.0 million 3 11 5 16 $ 41.6 million 3A 7 1 8 $ 24.0 million 3B 4 4 8 $ 17.6 million

RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE STANDARDS With alignments, stations, and technologies for each alternative established, the engineering requirements of each alternative could be developed. Using the planning team’s concepts for each alternative, rail operations specialists reviewed railroad engineering documentation for each line to determine the engineering upgrades required for passenger operations. Both the Bethlehem Running Track and the Stony Creek Branch are maintained at engineering standards that are acceptable for branch line freight operations but well below minimum requirements for passenger operation. Upgrades are required. Engineering standards for the subject lines were based on North American operating practices for low-density (new start) commuter rail passenger operations as applied in the Northeast. These de facto standards are outlined in Table 22. TABLE 22. STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER RAIL FACILITIES

Track at FRA Class III level to allow speeds up to 60 mph with speed restrictions: ƒ For curvature based on speed/curvature tables as appropriate. ƒ For high densities of grade crossings and densely settled areas. ƒ Where prudent for economy of procurement and operation. Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) signal system for bi-directional running on single track with passing sidings. Single track with passing sidings of a minimum of one mile in length located at least every five to eight miles on single-track systems. Automatic highway crossing protection of flashers and gates at all grade crossings. Passenger stations with 500 foot low platforms and mini-high platforms for ADA accessibility.

RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE UNIT CAPITAL COSTS The engineering standards were used to estimate the relative magnitude of capital expenditure required to bring each rail line up to acceptable physical condition. Generalized unit capital costs drawn from recent railroad right-of-way improvements were applied to each alternative. Units were defined based on a summary field inspection of existing conditions and other available

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 80 information regarding existing conditions of track and other infrastructural improvements. Unit costs were developed from other similar projects planned, engineered, or built recently in urbanized areas of the Northeastern United States. Unit costs include a 15-percent contingency factor and a 15-percent allowance for planning, engineering, and construction oversight, where appropriate. Representative unit costs for key infrastructural elements are summarized in Table 23. As noted above, this effort is directed towards producing a relative assessment of key cost components. It is not intended to be a comprehensive estimate of capital costs (which will be addressed for the lead alternative in Phase Two of this project).

TABLE 23. REPRESENTATIVE UNIT COSTS FOR KEY INFRASTRUCTURAL ELEMENTS Cost Per Unit Rail Infrastructure Element Unit (in Thousands) Track New Track and Roadbed Track Mile $1,222 Rehabilitate Existing Track and Roadbed Track Mile $375 Power Turnout for Passing Siding Each $231 Signals CTC Single Track Signal System Track Mile $325 Crossing Protection Automatic Highway Crossing Warning Device Crossing $150 Stations 500 Foot Low Platform with ADA Mini-High Platform Station $406 Vehicle Facilities and Structures DMU/EMU Layover and Running Repair Facilities Car $378,500 Small DLRT Maintenance/Administration Facility Unit $14,250,000 Aerial Structure (Single-Track) Linear Foot $1,755 Power and Catenary AC Electric Overhead Catenary Track Mile $397 AC Electric Substation & Switching Station Pair $17,192 AC Electric Paralleling Station (1 every 10 route miles) Route Mile $331

RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS BY ALTERNATIVE Each alternative has been analyzed to determine the level of rail infrastructure improvements necessary to support the proposed rail operation. The proposed capital work effort to provide a rail infrastructure to support each service alternative is summarized in Table 24. Alternative 1 provides rail service between Shelly and Wilmer via Lansdale, Norristown, and Phoenixville. The service would originate in Shelly, operating on the Bethlehem Running Track to Dale Interlocking and then onto the Stony Creek between Lansdale and Elm Interlocking and on the SEPTA R6 line to the Norristown Transportation Center. At the Norristown Transportation Center, the service would operate westward over the Schuylkill River to the NS Harrisburg Line, running past Abrams Yard, diverting at Perkiomen from the Harrisburg Line onto the Perkiomen Industrial Track and the Phoenixville Industrial Track. Running westward on the Phoenixville track, the service would bear south at Phoenixville onto the Devault line to a terminal at Wilmer. Alternative 2 provides rail service between Philadelphia and Shelly. This service utilizes Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor between Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station and North Philadelphia, the existing SEPTA R6 line between North Philadelphia and Elm Interlocking, the Stony Creek Branch between Elm Interlocking and Dale Interlocking in Lansdale, and the Bethlehem Running Track between Lansdale and Shelly. Alternative 3A, an extension of the existing SEPTA R5 service to Philadelphia, provides rail service between Lansdale and Shelly on the Bethlehem Running Track.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 81

Alternative 3B provides rail service between Lansdale and King of Prussia, utilizing the Stony Creek Branch between Lansdale and Norristown and a new rail line between Norristown and King of Prussia operating via SEPTA’s Route 100 alignment and a proposed extension. TABLE 24. PROJECTED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL WORK Alternative Segment Rail Infrastructure Improvements ƒ Replace 3.5 miles of single track. ƒ Rehabilitate 4 highway grade crossings. Shelly to ƒ Construct 1 passenger station. Quakertown ƒ Install signal system. ƒ Construct layover and running repair facility for diesel rail cars. ƒ Rebuild 16 miles of single track. ƒ Install 2 passing sidings of 4 miles each. Quakertown to ƒ Rehabilitate 26 highway grade crossings. Dale ƒ Construct 6 passenger stations. ƒ Install signal system. 1 ƒ Replace 9.9 miles of single track. ƒ Install 1 passing siding of 4 miles. Dale to ƒ Rehabilitate 16 highway grade crossings. Norristown ƒ Construct 4 passenger stations. ƒ Install signal system. ƒ Perform improvements at Norristown to accommodate service. ƒ Replace 10.8 miles of track. ƒ Install 1 passing siding of 2 miles. Norristown to ƒ Rehabilitate 3 highway grade crossings. Wilmer ƒ Construct 4 passenger stations. ƒ Install signal system. ƒ Construct layover and running repair facilities for diesel rail cars. ƒ Rebuild 3.5 miles of single track. ƒ Rehabilitate 4 highway grade crossings. Shelly to ƒ Construct 1 passenger station. Quakertown ƒ Install signal system. ƒ Construct layover and running repair facilities for diesel rail cars. ƒ Rebuild 16 miles of single track. ƒ Install 2 passing sidings of 1 mile each. Quakertown to ƒ Rehabilitate 26 highway grade crossings. Dale ƒ Construct 6 passenger stations. 2 ƒ Install signal system. ƒ Replace 9.9 miles of single track. ƒ Install 1 passing siding of 3 miles. Dale to ƒ Rehabilitate 16 highway grade crossings. Norristown ƒ Construct 4 passenger stations. ƒ Install signal system. ƒ Rehabilitate Interchange Track at North Philadelphia. Norristown to ƒ Construct layover and running repair facilities for diesel rail cars in 30th Street conjunction with PennDOT and Amtrak.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 82

TABLE 24. PROJECTED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL WORK (continued) Alternative Segment Rail Infrastructure Improvements ƒ Rebuild 3.5 miles of single track. ƒ Rehabilitate 4 highway grade crossings. Shelly to ƒ Construct 1 passenger station. Quakertown ƒ Install signal system. ƒ Install electric catenary system. ƒ Rebuild 16 miles of single track. 3A ƒ Install 2 passing sidings of 5 miles each. Quakertown to ƒ Rehabilitate 26 highway grade crossings. Lansdale ƒ Construct 6 passenger stations. ƒ Install signal system. ƒ Install electric catenary system. Lansdale to No improvements. 30th Street ƒ Replace 9.9 miles of single track. ƒ Install 2 passing sidings of 1 mile each. ƒ Rehabilitate 16 highway grade crossings. Lansdale to Elm ƒ Construct 4 passenger stations. ƒ Install signal system. ƒ Construct layover and running repair facility for diesel rail cars. 3B ƒ Replace 1.2 miles of single track. Elm to ƒ Install 5 highway grade crossings. Norristown ƒ Install signal system. ƒ Construct connection to Norristown High Speed Line. Norristown to Improvements provided by Route 100 Extension to King of Prussia. King of Prussia

RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL COSTS The rail infrastructure costs estimated to implement rail passenger services for the proposed alternatives are summarized in Table 25. These costs represent planning level estimates based on a preliminary assessment of actual field conditions. A more detailed engineering level of analysis would be required to produce more refined estimates of rail infrastructure costs. Estimated infrastructure costs were developed for the various alternatives by applying the representative unit costs previously detailed. Costs considered in this level of alternative development do not include provision of parking facilities at the proposed rail passenger stations. TABLE 25. ESTIMATED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS Rail Infrastructure Element (Costs in Millions) Vehicle Base Route Crossing & Other Power & Alternate Miles Track Signal Protection Stations Structures Catenary Total 1 44.2 $43.41 $17.79 $8.10 $6.10 $5.30 -- $80.70 2 29.4 $28.83 $11.90 $7.65 $4.47 $5.30 -- $58.15 3 36.5 $28.09 $13.85 $7.65 $4.48 $23.04 $32.20 $109.31 3A 19.5 $11.99 $9.59 $4.50 $2.85 $3.03 $32.20 $65.16 3B 17.0 $16.10 $4.26 $3.15 $1.63 $20.01 -- $45.15 Alternative 3 (combining an extension of Route R5 service to Shelly and DLRT service between Lansdale and King of Prussia) would be the most expensive option with infrastructure improvements costing about $109 million. The infrastructure costs for Alternative 1 (rail shuttle

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 83 service between Shelly and Wilmer) would be about $81 million. The least expensive option would be Alternative 2 (commuter rail service between Shelly and Philadelphia via Norristown) at about $58 million.

CAPITAL COST ASSESSMENT The relative capital costs of key infrastructural elements for each of the alternatives are summarized in Table 26.

TABLE 26. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COST ASSESSMENT Alternative Infrastructure Rolling Stock Total 1 $ 80.7 million $ 35.0 million $ 115.7 million 2 $ 58.2 million $ 35.0 million $ 93.2 million 3 $ 109.3 million $ 41.6 million $ 150.9 million 3A $ 64.2 million $ 24.0 million $ 88.2 million 3B $ 45.1 million $ 17.6 million $ 62.7 million

4.3.2. Operating Cost Assessment Anticipated operating costs were developed for each alternative based on the following elements: • Transportation • Maintenance of Equipment • Maintenance of Way • Administration As with the assessment of capital costs, this effort was not directed towards establishing absolute operating cost estimates for each alternative. Its purpose was to support a relative assessment of key cost components that could be used as a consistent basis of comparison between alternatives. More detailed and comprehensive operating cost estimates will be produced for the lead alternative during Phase Two. In estimating operating costs for each of the identified service alternatives, an average of recent unit values were used, drawn from SEPTA or similar rail systems. Rail operating costs include:

TRANSPORTATION ƒ Train and Engine Crews ƒ Train Movement Control (Dispatching) ƒ Amtrak Access Fees ƒ Train Supplies (tickets, passenger schedules, flares, tissue paper, etc.) ƒ Fuel MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT ƒ Rolling Stock Maintenance ƒ Rolling Stock Cleaning ƒ Rolling Stock Inspection ƒ Rolling Stock Repairs ƒ Rolling Stock Replacement Parts MAINTENANCE OF WAY ƒ Track Maintenance and Inspection ƒ Signal Maintenance and Inspection ƒ Bridge and Building Maintenance ƒ Station Cleaning and Snow Removal

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 84

ADMINISTRATION

OPERATING COST ASSUMPTIONS Operating cost estimates were developed based upon a number of assumptions drawn from sources at SEPTA or similar rail properties.

TRANSPORTATION • All services are to be operated by SEPTA. • Train crews are governed by SEPTA practices pertaining to rail safety rules and work practices. The number of required train personnel would be as required by SEPTA labor agreements. The cost of train crews and transportation supervision is estimated to be approximately $4.57 per mile. The estimate is based on the ratio of reported transportation costs to revenue vehicle miles for 1995. Transportation costs include: − Train crews − Dispatching − Deadhead non-revenue moves − Station attendants. • The estimated fuel cost for the proposed service alternatives is $0.30 per unit mile for DMU service and $0.37 per unit mile for lightweight low floor diesel transit cars based on manufacturers’ specifications. Electric traction power costs for the R5 Extension are based on 1995 reported SEPTA costs for regional electric utility costs ($1.25 per revenue vehicle mile). • Train Control on jointly operated portions of the rail line would be dispatched by SEPTA. • Operation on Amtrak would be charged at the SEPTA standard rate of $6.21 per train mile.

MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT • For DMU service, the average cost for annual maintenance is estimated to be approximately $59,000 per vehicle. This rate is based on a manufacturer’s survey of DMU maintenance requirements. • For EMU service, the average cost for annual maintenance is estimated to be approximately $81,000 per vehicle, based on SEPTA 1995 reported costs.

MAINTENANCE OF WAY • Track, signal, and station maintenance costs for each proposed alternative are based on a per track-mile cost of approximately $40,000 per year for electrified lines (based on SEPTA’s 1995 reported costs) and about $35,000 per year for non-electrified lines.

ADMINISTRATION • Administration includes general management, marketing, revenue accounting, claims, liability, and service planning. SEPTA’s Regional Rail administration and general management is in the neighborhood of 17 percent of direct costs.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 85

TABLE 27. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS DETAIL Annual Operating Costs (in Millions) 1 2 3 3A 3B Train Crews and Supervision $ 5.63 $ 5.21 $ 4.30 $ 2.87 $ 1.43 Fuel and Electric Traction Power $ 0.37 $ 0.35 $ 1.12 $ 1.02 $ 0.10 Train Supplies $ 0.07 $ 0.04 $ 0.10 $ 0.07 $ 0.03 Amtrak Access Fees -- $ 0.22 ------Transportation Subtotal: $6.07 $ 5.82 $ 5.52 $ 3.96 $ 1.56 EMU Maintenance -- -- $ 0.65 $ 0.65 -- DMU Maintenance $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.47 -- $ 0.47 Maintenance of Equipment Subtotal: $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 1.12 $ 0.65 $ 0.47 Inspection and Maintenance with Catenary -- -- $ 1.81 $ 1.81 -- Inspection and Maintenance without Catenary $ 1.55 $ 1.69 $ 0.59 -- $ 0.59 Maintenance of Way Subtotal: $ 1.55 $ 1.69 $ 2.40 $ 1.81 $ 0.59 Administration: $ 1.43 $ 1.42 $ 1.54 $ 1.09 $ 0.45 Total: $ 9.88 $ 9.76 $ 10.58 $ 7.51 $ 3.07 Table 27 suggests that Alternative 2 would be the least expensive alternative to operate with annual operating costs of about $9.8 million. Alternative 1—with more annual vehicle miles and miles of new track facilities—would cost about $9.9 million per year to operate. Alternative 3— with two separate services—would cost about $10.6 million per year to operate. Looking at the component parts of Alternative 3, Alternative 3A alone would cost about $7.5 million to operate, reflecting the additional vehicle and crew miles incurred by extending to Shelly all Route R5 trains which presently turn at Lansdale. The annual operating costs for Alternative 3B alone—running a small fleet over a relatively short route—would be a more modest $3.1 million.

5. INITIAL PATRONAGE ASSESSMENT

The patronage potential of each preliminary alternative was assessed by applying a model developed in Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Project H-1 and documented in TCRP Report 16: Transit and Urban Form. The “commuter rail” model of daily boardings by station was calibrated against data for 550 stations on 47 rail lines in the U.S. The TCRP model was selected to produce a comparison of patronage potential of each alternative relative to the other two. The TCRP model relates the daily passenger boardings to a series of transportation service and land use factors, including: • Population density surrounding the station. • Average Household Income. • CBD employment density. • Distance and travel time between each station and CBD. • Availability of feeder bus service and station parking. The model was evaluated for the demographic data given above and several combinations of bus service and parking availability. Demographic and distance variables were collected for each station location from an on-line commercial data service and held constant for each alternative. The model was calibrated for the Philadelphia region using patronage figures for individual rail stations provided by SEPTA. Adjustments were also made to the model to account for alternatives that required a change of mode enroute. Out-of-vehicle time experienced by passengers was multiplied by a factor of two and added to travel time to account for the subjective inconvenience experienced in a transfer. Transfers in protected environments (such

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 86 as 30th Street Station) were also assigned a four-minute disutility penalty, while transfers in an open environment (e.g., Lansdale and Norristown) were assigned an eight-minute disutility.8 The TCRP Model is intended to model the patronage of a traditional commuter rail service oriented toward a single regional central business district. Evaluation of the preliminary alternatives, however, requires an assessment of patronage to two different business districts— Center City Philadelphia and King of Prussia. For the purposes of the screening exercise, the TCRP Model was applied separately to each destination’s business district. The result is a numerical score for the relative affinity of each alternative to either destination. The resultant patronage affinity “score” should not be misconstrued as a “stand-alone” ridership forecast, which will be accomplished for the Lead Alternative in Phase Two. The relative patronage affinity scores of each alternative are summarized in Table 28, based on the calculations outlined in Table 29 for the Philadelphia CBD and in Table 30 for the King of Prussia area employment market. The combined information is summarized for both destinations in Table 30 and Figure 25. TABLE 28. RELATIVE PATRONAGE AFFINITIES SCORES Relative Patronage Affinity Score Center City King of Combined Philadelphia Prussia Score SHELLY-WILMER Shuttle Service Alternative 1 1191 500 1691 (no direct service to Philadelphia) SHELLY-PHILADELPHIA Service via Norristown (to Alternative 2 1361 374 1734 30th Street Station with Diesel Locomotive) SHELLY-PHILADELPHIA Service via Jenkintown (to All CBD Stations) Alternative 3 1275 791 2066 LANSDALE-KING OF PRUSSIA Diesel LRT Service

FIGURE 25. RELATIVE PATRONAGE AFFINITIES SCORES 1600 Center City Philadelphia King of Prussia 1400 1361 1200 1275 1191

1000

800 791

600

500 400 374 200 Relative Patronage Affinity to Destination

0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

8 The subjective time rates and disutility penalties were taken from the Federal Highway Administration publication, Evaluation of Intermodal Transfer Facilities by Alan J. Horowitz and Nick A. Thompson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; September 1994.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 87

TABLE 29. RELATIVE PATRONAGE AFFINITY TO CENTER CITY DESTINATIONS

Subjective All trips calculated to Suburban Station Travel Time Transfer Time Travel Time ile) m avel CBD y o y ed es/ ilit ty ty mum U Tr ni ni inut iles t ffi ffi

Stations m Average Household Income Average Population Density M CBD Employment Density Maxi Patronage A DM Time EMU Travel Time Bus Travel Time Transfer Time Transfer Weight Disut Penalt In-Vehicle Travel Time Out-of- Vehicle Travel Time Travel Rate ( Adjust Patronage A Alternative 1: SHELLY-WILMER Shuttle Service (no direct service to Philadelphia) Shelly $ 54,962 0.57 45.9 148.4 285 31 min 56 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 87 min 28 min 2.5 209 Quakertown $ 47,785 1.86 42.4 148.4 221 27 min 56 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 83 min 28 min 2.6 155 Perkasie $ 59,326 2.11 37.2 148.4 281 19 min 56 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 75 min 28 min 2.8 186 Derstines $ 53,192 2.32 33.1 148.4 262 16 min 56 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 72 min 28 min 3.0 156 Telford $ 56,387 2.54 30.9 148.4 87 13 min 56 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 69 min 28 min 3.1 49 Franconia $ 55,488 2.68 29.3 148.4 86 9 min 56 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 65 min 28 min 3.2 48 Hatfield $ 58,521 2.8 26.6 148.4 90 6 min 56 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 62 min 28 min 3.4 45 Lansdale $ 66,177 4.61 24.8 148.4 West Point $ 71,015 3.9 23.9 148.4 112 19 min 41 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 60 min 28 min 3.7 47 Blue Bell $ 91,481 1.71 21.3 148.4 109 15 min 41 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 56 min 28 min 3.9 38 East Norriton $ 62,462 4.6 18.7 148.4 95 11 min 41 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 52 min 28 min 4.3 25 Norristown $ 57,531 6.5 18.2 148.4 Pt. Kennedy $ 84,313 2.01 22.5 148.4 108 8 min 41 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 49 min 28 min 3.4 53 Oaks $ 74,629 1.1 27.5 148.4 88 15 min 41 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 56 min 28 min 3.1 52 Phoenixville $ 62,939 2.86 29.5 148.4 98 19 min 41 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 60 min 28 min 3.0 59 Wilmer $ 70,510 3.05 32.3 148.4 111 23 min 41 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 64 min 28 min 2.8 71 Relative Patronage Affinity to the Philadelphia CBD: 1191 Alternative 2: SHELLY-PHILADELPHIA Service via Norristown (to 30th Street Station with Diesel Locomotive) Shelly $ 54,962 0.57 48.4 148.4 279 90 min 5 min 5 min 2.00 4 min 95 min 14 min 2.3 223 Quakertown $ 47,785 1.86 44.9 148.4 218 86 min 5 min 5 min 2.00 4 min 91 min 14 min 2.3 169 Perkasie $ 59,326 2.11 39.7 148.4 279 75 min 5 min 5 min 2.00 4 min 80 min 14 min 2.4 215 Derstines $ 53,192 2.32 37.7 148.4 261 72 min 5 min 5 min 2.00 4 min 77 min 14 min 2.4 198 Telford $ 56,387 2.54 35.6 148.4 87 69 min 5 min 5 min 2.00 4 min 74 min 14 min 2.5 65 Franconia $ 55,488 2.68 33.4 148.4 87 65 min 5 min 5 min 2.00 4 min 70 min 14 min 2.5 64 Hatfield $ 58,521 2.8 31.8 148.4 92 62 min 5 min 5 min 2.00 4 min 67 min 14 min 2.5 66 Lansdale $ 66,177 4.61 29.1 148.4 115 56 min 5 min 5 min 2.00 4 min 61 min 14 min 2.6 82 West Point $ 71,015 3.9 27.3 148.4 116 53 min 5 min 5 min 2.00 4 min 58 min 14 min 2.6 81 Blue Bell $ 91,481 1.71 24.0 148.4 114 48 min 5 min 5 min 2.00 4 min 53 min 14 min 2.8 75 East Norriton $ 62,462 4.6 21.4 148.4 100 43 min 5 min 5 min 2.00 4 min 48 min 14 min 2.9 63 Norristown $ 57,531 6.5 18.3 148.4 95 33 min 5 min 5 min 2.00 4 min 38 min 14 min 2.8 61 Relative Patronage Affinity to the Philadelphia CBD: 1361 Alternative 3: SHELLY-PHILADELPHIA Service via Jenkintown (to All CBD Stations) & LANSDALE-KING OF PRUSSIA Diesel LRT Servi Shelly $ 54,962 0.57 44.1 148.4 289 86 min 86 min 0 min 2.0 254 Quakertown $ 47,785 1.86 40.6 148.4 223 82 min 82 min 0 min 2.0 192 Perkasie $ 59,326 2.11 35.4 148.4 282 74 min 74 min 0 min 2.1 238 Derstines $ 53,192 2.32 33.4 148.4 262 71 min 71 min 0 min 2.1 218 Telford $ 56,387 2.54 31.3 148.4 87 68 min 68 min 0 min 2.2 71 Franconia $ 55,488 2.68 29.1 148.4 86 64 min 64 min 0 min 2.2 70 Hatfield $ 58,521 2.8 27.5 148.4 90 61 min 61 min 0 min 2.2 73 Lansdale $ 66,177 4.61 24.8 148.4 West Point $ 71,015 3.9 27.5 148.4 116 19 min 41 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 60 min 28 min 3.2 63 Blue Bell $ 91,481 1.71 24.2 148.4 114 15 min 41 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 56 min 28 min 3.5 54 East Norriton $ 62,462 4.6 21.6 148.4 101 11 min 41 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 52 min 28 min 3.7 41 Norristown $ 57,531 6.5 18.2 148.4 King of Prussia $ 82,921 2.87 22.4 148.4 Relative Patronage Affinity to the Philadelphia CBD: 1275

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 88

TABLE 30. RELATIVE PASSENGER AFFINITY TO KING OF PRUSSIA DESTINATIONS

Subjective All trips calcuated to King of Prussia Mall Travel Time Transfer Time Travel Time e

l ile) e e te ent v a m a r - f Travel mu o i e e e e - U ploym P x t inutes/m sutility i ensity ensity Stations ousehold Average H Income Average Population D Miles to KOP KO Em D Ma Patronage Affinity DMU T Tim EM Tim Bus Travel Tim Transfer Tim Transfer Weight D Penalty In-Vehicle Travel Tim Ou Vehicle Travel Tim Travel R (m Adjusted Patronage Affinity Alternative 1: SHELLY-WILMER Shuttle Service (no direct service to Philadelphia) Shelly $ 54,962 0.57 36.9 70.1 174 76 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 84 min 14 min 2.7 120 Quakertown $ 47,785 1.86 33.4 70.1 132 72 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 80 min 14 min 2.8 86 Perkasie $ 59,326 2.11 28.2 70.1 162 64 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 72 min 14 min 3.0 95 Derstines $ 53,192 2.32 24.1 70.1 145 61 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 69 min 14 min 3.4 70 Telford $ 56,387 2.54 21.9 70.1 47 58 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 66 min 14 min 3.7 20 Franconia $ 55,488 2.68 20.3 70.1 45 54 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 62 min 14 min 3.7 18 Hatfield $ 58,521 2.8 17.6 70.1 45 51 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 59 min 14 min 4.1 13 Lansdale $ 66,177 4.61 15.8 70.1 54 45 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 53 min 14 min 4.2 14 West Point $ 71,015 3.9 12.5 70.1 48 41 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 49 min 14 min 5.0 3 Blue Bell $ 91,481 1.71 9.9 70.1 42 37 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 45 min 14 min 6.0 None East Norriton $ 62,462 4.6 7.3 70.1 31 27 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 35 min 14 min 6.7 None Norristown $ 57,531 6.5 6.8 70.1 30 6 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 14 min 14 min 4.1 9 Pt. Kennedy $ 84,313 2.01 0.0 70.1 Oaks $ 74,629 1.1 7.5 70.1 26 7 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 15 min 14 min 3.9 10 Phoenixville $ 62,939 2.86 9.5 70.1 33 11 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 19 min 14 min 3.5 16 Wilmer $ 70,510 3.05 12.3 70.1 44 15 min 8 min 3 min 2.00 8 min 23 min 14 min 3.0 26 Relative Patronage Affinity to King of Prussia: 500 Alternative 2: SHELLY-PHILADELPHIA Service via Norristown (to 30th Street Station with Diesel Locomotive) Shelly $ 54,962 0.57 36.6 70.1 174 54 min 28 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 82 min 28 min 3.0 104 Quakertown $ 47,785 1.86 33.1 70.1 132 50 min 28 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 78 min 28 min 3.2 72 Perkasie $ 59,326 2.11 27.9 70.1 161 42 min 28 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 70 min 28 min 3.5 75 Derstines $ 53,192 2.32 25.9 70.1 148 39 min 28 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 67 min 28 min 3.7 62 Telford $ 56,387 2.54 23.8 70.1 48 36 min 28 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 64 min 28 min 3.9 18 Franconia $ 55,488 2.68 21.6 70.1 46 32 min 28 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 60 min 28 min 4.1 15 Hatfield $ 58,521 2.8 20.0 70.1 48 29 min 28 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 57 min 28 min 4.3 13 Lansdale $ 66,177 4.61 17.3 70.1 56 23 min 28 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 51 min 28 min 4.6 10 West Point $ 71,015 3.9 15.5 70.1 54 20 min 28 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 48 min 28 min 4.9 5 Blue Bell $ 91,481 1.71 12.2 70.1 48 15 min 28 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 43 min 28 min 5.8 None East Norriton $ 62,462 4.6 9.6 70.1 38 9 min 28 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 37 min 28 min 6.8 None Norristown $ 57,531 6.5 6.5 70.1 Relative Patronage Affinity to King of Prussia: 374 Alternative 3: SHELLY-PHILADELPHIA Service via Jenkintown (to All CBD Stations) & LANSDALE-KING OF PRUSSIA Diesel LRT Servic Shelly $ 54,962 0.57 42.6 70.1 170 30 min 30 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 60 min 28 min 2.1 145 Quakertown $ 47,785 1.86 39.1 70.1 131 30 min 26 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 56 min 28 min 2.1 109 Perkasie $ 59,326 2.11 33.9 70.1 165 30 min 18 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 48 min 28 min 2.2 132 Derstines $ 53,192 2.32 31.9 70.1 153 30 min 15 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 45 min 28 min 2.3 121 Telford $ 56,387 2.54 29.8 70.1 51 30 min 12 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 42 min 28 min 2.3 39 Franconia $ 55,488 2.68 27.6 70.1 50 30 min 8 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 38 min 28 min 2.4 38 Hatfield $ 58,521 2.8 26.0 70.1 52 30 min 5 min 10 min 2.00 8 min 35 min 28 min 2.4 39 Lansdale $ 66,177 4.61 23.3 70.1 64 30 min 30 min 0 min 1.3 67 West Point $ 71,015 3.9 13.5 70.1 50 27 min 27 min 0 min 2.0 43 Blue Bell $ 91,481 1.71 10.2 70.1 43 23 min 23 min 0 min 2.3 34 East Norriton $ 62,462 4.6 7.6 70.1 32 19 min 19 min 0 min 2.5 23 Norristown $ 57,531 6.5 4.2 70.1 King of Prussia $ 82,921 2.87 0.0 70.1 Relative Patronage Affinity to King of Prussia: 791

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 89

All of the alternatives exhibited a stronger affinity to Center City Philadelphia versus King of Prussia destinations. Alternative 2 had the greatest affinity for Center City destinations while Alternative 3 showed the greatest affinity to King of Prussia destinations. Connecting service strategies that required passengers to transfer enroute generally performed less well than through service strategies.

6. SELECTION OF THE LEAD ALTERNATIVE

The capital costs, operating costs, and patronage potential associated with each preliminary alternative are summarized in Table 31. Alternative 2 entails the lowest capital and operating costs while scoring highest in terms of patronage affinity to Center City Philadelphia. Alternative 3 scored a higher patronage affinity to King of Prussia, albeit through significant investment in infrastructure. TABLE 31. PRELIMINARY SERVICE ALTERNATIVES CAPITAL COST, OPERATING COST AND PATRONAGE ASSESSMENTS Alternative 1 2 3 Capital Costs—Infrastructure $80.7 million $58.2 million $109.3 million Capital Costs—Vehicles $35.0 million $35.0 million $41.6 million Annual Operating Costs $9.9 million $9.8 million $10.6 million Patronage Affinity to Philadelphia CBD 1191 1361 1275 Patronage Affinity to King of Prussia 500 374 791 There was a suggestion that the relative passenger affinity scores for Alternative 2 could be further improved if calculations considered: • Using dual-power rolling stock capable of providing direct access to Suburban, Market East, and Temple University Stations in Center City Philadelphia.9 • Passengers transferring to the proposed Route 100 King of Prussia Spur at the Norristown Transportation Center rather than using local bus service (Route 99) for King of Prussia access. A preliminary review of patronage affinities associated with these options suggested that these notions might be well founded, but the travel patterns associated with them are too complex to be evaluated with the simple TCRP Model. Based on these scores, the Study Technical Advisory Committee recommended advancing some variation of Alternative 2 as the lead alternative for further analysis in Phase Two. This recommendation should not be misconstrued to suggest that Alternative 2 represents a viable means for restoring passenger rail on the Bethlehem Branch and/or the Stony Creek Branch; nor that it is either the only or best means. If Phase Two concludes that there is at least one feasible means of restoring passenger rail service, all service alternatives would be subjected to further scrutiny in a follow-on transportation improvement study in accordance with federal planning guidelines.

NEXT STEPS Phase Two of the Quakertown-Stony Creek Rail Restoration Study will further refine and evaluate the details of Alternative 2, as well as investigate implementation strategies. More detailed estimates of capital and operating costs and more extensive passenger demand forecasts will be developed. An additional series of public meetings will be conducted to review

9 The uncertainties associated with pursuing a dual-power rolling stock option (Through Service Strategies A2 and A3) are described in Section 3.2 of this report. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that the magnitude of ridership resulting from improved Center City access for the outlying, non- electrified portions of the SEPTA rail network may be sufficient to warrant the risks.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 90 the Study recommendations with the general public and provide an opportunity for their input into the decision making process. DVRPC’s regional model will be employed during Phase Two of the project. This is an ideal tool to evaluate the complex travel patterns presented by Alternative 2, as well as possible variations (such as options employing dual-power rolling stock). It can also address other concerns beyond the capabilities of the TCRP Model to resolve, such as the number of new transit riders the alternative will attract (as opposed to existing transit riders merely diverted from other services). Phase Two will result in a conclusion as to whether or not restoration of passenger rail service is physically and fiscally feasible on the Bethlehem Branch and/or the Stony Creek Branch and provide a recommendation for future actions.

7. REFINEMENT OF THE LEAD ALTERNATIVE

7.1. Definition of the Lead Alternative The Lead Alternative (Alternative 2) was defined in Phase One as providing through, diesel rail service between Shelly in Richland Township, Bucks County, and 30th Street Station in Center City Philadelphia. The service could be operated with diesel push-pull locomotive and coach equipment or self-propelled diesel rail car equipment. Train service would be primarily oriented toward providing traditional, radial suburb-to-center city transit service, but could also serve intermediate intra-suburban trips along the route. Connections could be made with SEPTA Route R6 and Route 100 services in Norristown and with SEPTA Route R5 service in Lansdale. The alignment and station-stopping pattern for Alternative 2 is illustrated in Figure 26. The service would originate in Shelly, operate south on the Bethlehem Running Track to Dale Interlocking in Lansdale, continue southward on the Stony Creek Line to Elm Interlocking, then continue southward on the Norristown Line. Trains would operate non-stop between the Norristown Transportation Center and 30th Street Station, overlaying the existing local service provided by Route R6 trains. In effect, this alternative would mirror the attributes of the popular Norristown-Philadelphia express trains that were eliminated with Reading train service in 1981.

Alternative 2 would use SEPTA JWC-II Push-Pull coaches (left and center) with a locomotive, as opposed to the self-propelled Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) coaches (right) used elsewhere.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 91

FIGURE 26. ALTERNATIVE 2 ALIGNMENT AND STOPS

New Regional Rail Service EXISTING RAIL SERVICES Rte. R5 Regional Rail Service Rte. R6 Regional Rail Service Other Regional Rail Services Rte. 100 Light Rail Service Rte. 100 King of Prussia Spur (proposed) STATION LOCATIONS New Regional Rail Service Stops Rte. R5 & R6 Stops (Express & Local trains) Rte. R5 & R6 Stops (Local trains only) Interchange Station (All trains stop)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 92

Only electric trains are permitted to operate through the Center City Commuter Connection (CCCC). The new diesel train service, therefore, would leave the Norristown Line at North Philadelphia and operate via the Amtrak Northeast Corridor to the lower level of 30th Street Station. This is the only open-air station in Center City and diesel trains operated by Amtrak and NJ Transit presently terminate there. Under Alternative 2, trains would mix with conventional railroad trains passing through Lansdale and on the SEPTA Norristown Line between Norristown and North Philadelphia. They would also mix with Amtrak, SEPTA, and NJ Transit conventional railroad trains on the Amtrak Diesel-powered trains such as NJ Transit’s Atlantic City Northeast Corridor between North service terminate at open-air 30th Street Station. Philadelphia and 30th Street Station. Therefore, they would be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and would require rolling stock compatible with FRA regulations. With improvements in place to allow for 60 mph maximum allowable speeds (with significant speed restrictions for curvature and densely settled areas), trains could operate a limited stop service from Shelly to 30th Street in approximately 90 minutes. This would require a substantial infrastructure upgrade to the railroad north of CP Elm including: • Replacement and/or rehabilitation of all existing track north of Lansdale. • Replacement and/or rehabilitation of all existing track between CP Elm and CP Dale. • Installation of a signal system on the Stony Creek Branch between of CP Elm and CP Dale, and north of Lansdale. It was envisioned that the service developed for analytic purposes would be primarily oriented toward peak period commuting with limited reverse-peak and off-peak service.

7.2. Refinement of the Lead Alternative The Phase Two scope of work called for further refinement and evaluation of the lead alternative. This process consisted of: • Review of the lead alternative. • Identification of possible refinements. • Developing a detailed operating plan. • Providing more detailed travel demand forecasting. • Producing detailed operating and capital cost estimates.

7.2.1. Review of the Lead Alternative An apparent shortcoming in Alternative 2 identified during Phase One was its point of termination in Philadelphia. 30th Street Station is located across town from major Center City employment sites. Many potential commuters would need to transfer to other SEPTA services in order to reach their final destinations. From an operational standpoint, Alternative 2 requires cooperation from Amtrak to access its Northeast Corridor and station facilities. The current track configuration of North Philadelphia Interlocking would limit the new trains to operating over a single track in both directions between Zoo Interlocking and the Norristown Line interchange track. This configuration would complicate

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 93 train movements on a fairly congested portion of railroad shared by Amtrak high-speed Acela trainsets and conventional trains, two SEPTA regional rail routes, and the NJ Transit Atlantic City service. The patronage assessment activities conducted in Phase One suggested that services offering direct service through the CCCC attracted more ridership than comparable services requiring passengers to transfer enroute to reach Center City destinations. Similar comments were heard during the two initial public meetings. Only electric trains are permitted to operate through the CCCC in revenue service. Operating Alternative 2 trains through the CCCC could only be accomplished through one of two possible means: • Electrify the outlying railroad branches; or • Employ dual-power rolling stock capable of operating in electric and non-electric modes. The former concept was previously considered in Phase One (Alternative 3) but was set aside due to its higher capital costs relative to Alternative 2. Two variations of the latter concept were also considered in Phase One: • Dual-Power—AC Catenary Option. Locomo- tives capable of drawing propulsion power from an overhead contact system (OCS) as well as from on-board diesel-driven electric generators could sidestep the initial capital investment associated with extending electrification. This option is less flexible than extending the OCS since branch line service would rely on a dedicated set of unique locomotives for service. One domestic manufacturer (General Electric) currently offers to build dual-power locomotives compatible with the 11,500vAC OCS employed by SEPTA and Amtrak. The proposed 3,300 horsepower locomotive would be capable of pulling up to eight passengers coaches at speeds as great as 60 mph on tangent track, as well as starting such consists on a three-percent grade (the maximum grade in the CCCC is about 2½ percent). No such locomotives, however, have been produced. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation The Dual-power—AC Catenary Option employs locomotives capable of drawing power from Authority and NJ Transit both recently overhead wires or on-board diesel generators. considered but rejected the dual-powered AC option, citing concerns over the excessive weight, low top speed (60 mph) and sluggish performance of the hypothetical locomotive. Both agencies also expressed concerns about committing to an untried piece of equipment that has not yet advanced to the prototype stage of development. • Dual-Powered—DC Third Rail Option. Amtrak, MTA Metro North Commuter Railroad, and MTA Long Island Railroad currently employ dual-powered locomotives to access underground terminals in New York City. These locomotives nominally draw 750-volt direct current (DC) from wayside third rail systems while in the New York City terminal zone, but otherwise operate under diesel power.10 Metro North recently paid $4.1 million apiece for new “Genesis” P32 AC/DM locomotives from General Electric, the same model Amtrak uses.

10 A conventional “diesel” locomotive is actually a diesel-electric locomotive with an on-board diesel generator creating 750vDC for electric traction motors mounted on the engine’s trucks. For this reason, dual-power locomotives drawing 750vDC from wayside third rails are less complicated than the AC Catenary alternative.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 94

The Electro Motive Division of General Motors recently delivered new DM30AC locomotives to Long Island for $4.5 million apiece. Under this strategy, at least two tracks through the CCCC would need to be equipped with a DC third rail system in addition to the existing AC OCS. These two power distribution systems have satisfactorily co-existed for over a half- century on tracks in and around New York’s Pennsylvania Station, so signal incompatibility should not be a “fatal flaw.”11 The Dual-power—DC Third-Rail Option employs locomotives capable of drawing power from wayside third rail or on-board diesel generators (left). Third-rail power systems would be installed along tracks in the Center City Commuter Connector, as in New York City’s Grand Central Terminal (right). A CCCC third rail system would extend from Temple University Station (the last station stop north of the tunnel) and Powelton Yard (immediately west of 30th Street Station)—3.8 miles one-way. Installing a third rail on two CCCC tracks (most likely the center two tracks and its associated crossovers) would suggest an overall requirement for about 7.6 track miles of third rail electrification. An AC dual-power option was not pursued in Phase One due to the speculative nature of its availability. A DC dual-power option was not pursued due to the capital costs associated with acquiring unique rolling stock and installing duplicative electrification through the CCCC. Concerns were also expressed over introducing a radical departure from current SEPTA operating, equipment, and electrification practices. It was suggested in the Phase One report, however, that the dual-power options might be reconsidered if Alternative 2 advanced to Phase Two.

7.2.2. Identification of Possible Refinements Given the potential passenger benefits associated with providing direct service to more Center City destinations through the CCCC, both dual-power options were afforded further consideration in Phase Two as Alternatives 2A and 2B, respectively. Both alternatives would be virtually indistinguishable from the base Alternative 2 north of the Norristown Transportation Center, as illustrated in Figure 26. The variations are: • Alternative 2A: Dual-Power (AC Catenary). Locomotives would shift from on-board power to external AC power drawn from the OCS while dwelling at the Norristown Transportation Center. After shifting to external power, trains would proceed southward via the SEPTA Norristown Line and Main Line through the CCCC, making station stops at Temple University, Market East, Suburban, and 30th Street Stations before terminating in Powelton Yard. Northbound trains would operate in a similar manner in reverse, shifting back to on- board power at the Norristown Transportation Center then before proceeding northward on the Stony Creek Branch. • Alternative 2B: Dual-Power (DC Third Rail). Trains would continue southward from the Norristown Transportation Center via the SEPTA Norristown Line and Main Line under its own power. Locomotives would shift from on-board power to DC power drawn from the wayside third rail while dwelling at Temple University Station. After the shift to external power, trains will proceed southward via the SEPTA Main Line through the CCCC, making station stops at Market East, Suburban, and 30th Street Stations before terminating in

11 One potential concern, however, is signal system compatibility. Track circuits in Pennsylvania Station operate on atypical frequencies to avoid interference from the combination of DC and AC traction power systems.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 95

Powelton Yard. Northbound trains would operate in a similar manner in reverse, shifting back to on-board power at the Temple University Station before proceeding northward. The alignment and station-stopping pattern for Alternative 2A and Alternative 2B would be identical, as illustrated in Figure 27.

CHANGES IN INFRASTRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS The infrastructural requirements associated with Alternative 2A would be the same as those identified for the base Alternative 2, except that improvements to the North Philadelphia interchange track between the Norristown Line and the Northeast Corridor would not be needed. This assumes that the existing OCS and power supply is adequate to support the requirements of the new dual-powered locomotives. Alternative 2B, in contrast, would require the installation of about 7.6 miles of third rail on two tracks of the SEPTA Main Line between Temple University and Powelton Yard, through the CCCC. It is also anticipated that new electrical substations and feeders will be needed to supply DC power to the third rail, although it may be possible to avoid the cost of installing new substations. SEPTA presently operates four traction power substations in the immediate vicinity of proposed third rail installation. These substations convert commercial power into traction power (600 to 650 vDC) for three SEPTA subway lines, five subway-surface light rail lines, and a dormant streetcar line. One or more of these substations might be used to feed traction power to new third rail installation in the CCCC, provided that sufficient reserve electrical capacity remains. The candidate substations are: • Broad Substation, which feeds the Broad Street and Ridge Avenue Subways, is located less than two kilometers west of the north portal of the CCCC. • Sansom Substation, situated approximately 900 meters southeast of Market East Station, delivers power to the Market Street and Ridge Avenue Subways. • Ranstead Substation, which supplies the Market Street Subway and the five light rail lines on adjacent tracks, is situated about 700 meters southwest of the west portal of the tunnel. • Market Substation, three blocks west of 30th Street station, feeds the Market Street Subway and the five light rail lines that radiate into West Philadelphia. At one time, these substations collectively supplied power to the subway lines as well as to more than a dozen streetcar lines that have been abandoned or replaced with diesel buses. Sansom Substation also formerly supplied power to the Locust Street Subway, which is now fed by another city-owned substation operated as part of the independent PATCO Hi-Speed Line. Furthermore, subway train fleets were once substantially larger than they are today and substations were correspondingly sized to accommodate that demand. Taken as a whole, this suggests that significant surplus substation capacity may exist in present-day Center City.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 96

FIGURE 27. ALTERNATIVES 2A & 2B ALIGNMENT AND STOPS

New Regional Rail Service EXISTING RAIL SERVICES Rte. R5 Regional Rail Service Rte. R6 Regional Rail Service Other Regional Rail Services Rte. 100 Light Rail Service Rte. 100 King of Prussia Spur (proposed) STATION LOCATIONS New Regional Rail Service Stops Rte. R5 & R6 Stops (Express & Local trains) Rte. R5 & R6 Stops (Local trains only) Interchange Station (All trains stop)

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 97

On the other hand, today’s subway rolling stock is equipped with air conditioners and more powerful traction motors. The conversion equipment in the four substations has been incrementally replaced over the years and the net reduction in power demand may have been taken into account in the design process for new equipment. A thorough evaluation of the demand upon and capacity of each substation would be needed to determine whether SEPTA’s existing substation network could reliably feed a third rail installation in the CCCC. For this exercise, it was assumed that Alternative 2B would require new substations and feeders.

CHANGES IN ROLLING STOCK REQUIREMENTS Both Alternative 2A and Alternative 2B would require unique, dual-powered locomotives as well as push-pull commuter rail coaches, similar to those SEPTA currently operates. Diesel push-pull commuter trains are the predominant rail technology used by most North American commuter rail service outside the Mid-Atlantic States. SEPTA currently operates push-pull equipment using only electric locomotives,12 but the operating procedures are virtually identical to those associated with diesel locomotives and those assumed for dual-powered locomotives. Push-pull trains use a single locomotive to pull or push a bi-directional train consisting of three to nine passenger coaches. When operating in push mode, the engineer operates the train from a control cab in the leading coach, controlling throttle and brake by remote control. There is no need to turn the train around or run the locomotive around to the leading end of the train when reversing direction. Push-pull equipment meets all FRA safety specifications. Locomotives and coaches are available from competing suppliers, leading to relatively high quality products at competitive prices. In Phase One, the base Alternative 2 was evaluated using self-propelled diesel railcars, although diesel push-pull equipment was noted as an option. In Phase Two, Alternative 2 was evaluated using diesel push-pull equipment in order to be compatible with the other two alternatives and to facilitate comparisons of operating and capital costs.

7.2.3. Revised Operating Plan Operating characteristics from the Phase One were revised for Alternative 2 and developed for Alternatives 2A and 2B. There was no distinction between the three alternatives above North Philadelphia, based on an assumption of similar performance capabilities. Likewise, no distinction was made in the operating plan between the two new CCCC alternatives south of North Philadelphia. Station-to-station running times were calculated anew for all three alternatives using the same sketch planning tools used in Phase One. The results are summarized in Table 32, which represent essential inputs into the development of travel demand forecasts. Detailed operating schedules were prepared assuming a consistent level of service for the three alternatives (again, Alternatives 2A and 2B were combined due to their similarities). Weekday operating schedules are presented in timetable format in Tables 33 and 34, and in graphic (time- distance) format in Figures 28 and 29. Both timetable and graphs are color coded to facilitate tracking the movements of specific trainsets throughout the operating day. Equipment analysis indicates that all three alternatives would require four trainsets during peak periods.

12 SEPTA did operate push-pull trains with diesel locomotives for a brief period during RailWorks™.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 98

TABLE 32. STATION-TO-STATION DISTANCES AND RUNNING TIMES Alternative 2 Alternative 2A & 2B Interstation Interstation Interstation Interstation Stations Distance Time Distance Time Shelly 3.5 miles 4 minutes 3.5 miles 4 minutes Quakertown 5.2 miles 11 minutes 5.2 miles 11 minutes Perkasie 2.0 miles 3 minutes 2.0 miles 3 minutes Derstines 2.1 miles 3 minutes 2.1 miles 3 minutes Telford 2.2 miles 4 minutes 2.2 miles 4 minutes Franconia 1.6 miles 3 minutes 1.6 miles 3 minutes Hatfield 2.7 miles 6 minutes 2.7 miles 6 minutes Lansdale 1.8 miles 3 minutes 1.8 miles 3 minutes West Point 3.3 miles 5 minutes 3.3 miles 5 minutes Blue Bell 2.6 miles 5 minutes 2.6 miles 5 minutes East Norriton 3.1 miles 10 minutes 3.1 miles 10 minutes Norristown T. C. 15.4 miles 22 minutes Temple University 1.8 miles 6 minutes Market East 18.7 miles 33 minutes 0.5 miles 4 minutes Suburban Station 0.9 miles 4 minutes 30th Street Station Totals: 48.8 miles 90 minutes 48.7 miles 93 minutes

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 99

TABLE 33. ALTERNATIVE 2 REPRESENTATIVE WEEKDAY TIMETABLE

Northbound Miles 6400 6402 6404 6406 6408 6410 6412 6414 6416 6418 6420 30th Street Station 0.0 7:03 9:03 11:03 13:03 15:03 16:33 17:03 17:33 18:48 20:48 22:48 Norristown T.C. 18.7 7:36 9:36 11:36 13:36 15:36 17:06 17:36 18:06 19:21 21:21 23:21 East Norriton 21.8 7:46 9:46 11:46 13:46 15:46 17:16 17:46 18:16 19:31 21:31 23:31 Blue Bell 24.4 7:51 9:51 11:51 13:51 15:51 17:21 17:51 18:21 19:36 21:36 23:36 West Point 27.7 7:56 9:56 11:56 13:56 15:56 17:26 17:56 18:26 19:41 21:41 23:41 Lansdale 29.5 7:59 9:59 11:59 13:59 15:59 17:29 17:59 18:29 19:44 21:44 23:44 Hatfield 32.2 8:05 10:05 12:05 14:05 16:05 17:35 18:05 18:35 19:50 21:50 23:50 Franconia 33.8 8:08 10:08 12:08 14:08 16:08 17:38 18:08 18:38 19:53 21:53 23:53 Telford 36.0 8:12 10:12 12:12 14:12 16:12 17:42 18:12 18:42 19:57 21:57 23:57 Derstines 38.1 8:15 10:15 12:15 14:15 16:15 17:45 18:15 18:45 20:00 22:00 0:00 Perkasie 40.1 8:18 10:18 12:18 14:18 16:18 17:48 18:18 18:48 20:03 22:03 0:03 Quakertown 45.3 8:29 10:29 12:29 14:29 16:29 17:59 18:29 18:59 20:14 22:14 0:14 Shelly 48.8 8:33 10:33 12:33 14:33 16:33 18:03 18:33 19:03 20:18 22:18 0:18 Next Train: 9:03 11:03 13:03 15:03 17:03 L 19:03 L 21:03 L L

Southbound Miles 6401 6403 6405 6407 6409 6411 6413 6415 6417 6419 6421 Shelly 48.8 5:18 6:03 6:33 7:03 9:03 11:03 13:03 15:03 17:03 19:03 21:03 Quakertown 45.3 5:22 6:07 6:37 7:07 9:07 11:07 13:07 15:07 17:07 19:07 21:07 Perkasie 40.1 5:33 6:18 6:48 7:18 9:18 11:18 13:18 15:18 17:18 19:18 21:18 Derstines 38.1 5:36 6:21 6:51 7:21 9:21 11:21 13:21 15:21 17:21 19:21 21:21 Telford 36.0 5:39 6:24 6:54 7:24 9:24 11:24 13:24 15:24 17:24 19:24 21:24 Franconia 33.8 5:43 6:28 6:58 7:28 9:28 11:28 13:28 15:28 17:28 19:28 21:28 Hatfield 32.2 5:46 6:31 7:01 7:31 9:31 11:31 13:31 15:31 17:31 19:31 21:31 Lansdale 29.5 5:52 6:37 7:07 7:37 9:37 11:37 13:37 15:37 17:37 19:37 21:37 West Point 27.7 5:55 6:40 7:10 7:40 9:40 11:40 13:40 15:40 17:40 19:40 21:40 Blue Bell 24.4 6:00 6:45 7:15 7:45 9:45 11:45 13:45 15:45 17:45 19:45 21:45 East Norriton 21.8 6:05 6:50 7:20 7:50 9:50 11:50 13:50 15:50 17:50 19:50 21:50 Norristown T.C. 18.7 6:15 7:00 7:30 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 30th Street Station 0.0 6:48 7:33 8:03 8:33 10:33 12:33 14:33 16:33 18:33 20:33 22:33 Next Train: 7:03 L L 9:03 11:03 13:03 15:03 17:03 18:48 20:48 22:48 L - Indicates going trainset is out of service.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 100

TABLE 34. ALTERNATIVES 2A & 2B REPRESENTATIVE WEEKDAY TIMETABLE

Northbound Miles 6400 6402 6404 6406 6408 6410 6412 6414 6416 6418 6420 30th Street Station 0.0 7:03 9:03 11:03 13:03 15:03 16:33 17:03 17:33 18:48 20:48 22:48 Suburban Station 0.9 7:07 9:07 11:07 13:07 15:07 16:37 17:07 17:37 18:52 20:52 22:52 Market East Station 1.4 7:11 9:11 11:11 13:11 15:11 16:41 17:11 17:41 18:56 20:56 22:56 Temple University 3.2 7:17 9:17 11:17 13:17 15:17 16:47 17:17 17:47 19:02 21:02 23:02 Norristown T.C. 18.6 7:39 9:39 11:39 13:39 15:39 17:09 17:39 18:09 19:24 21:24 23:24 East Norriton 21.7 7:49 9:49 11:49 13:49 15:49 17:19 17:49 18:19 19:34 21:34 23:34 Blue Bell 24.3 7:54 9:54 11:54 13:54 15:54 17:24 17:54 18:24 19:39 21:39 23:39 West Point 27.6 7:59 9:59 11:59 13:59 15:59 17:29 17:59 18:29 19:44 21:44 23:44 Lansdale 29.4 8:02 10:02 12:02 14:02 16:02 17:32 18:02 18:32 19:47 21:47 23:47 Hatfield 32.1 8:08 10:08 12:08 14:08 16:08 17:38 18:08 18:38 19:53 21:53 23:53 Franconia 33.7 8:11 10:11 12:11 14:11 16:11 17:41 18:11 18:41 19:56 21:56 23:56 Telford 35.9 8:15 10:15 12:15 14:15 16:15 17:45 18:15 18:45 20:00 22:00 0:00 Derstines 38.0 8:18 10:18 12:18 14:18 16:18 17:48 18:18 18:48 20:03 22:03 0:03 Perkasie 40.0 8:21 10:21 12:21 14:21 16:21 17:51 18:21 18:51 20:06 22:06 0:06 Quakertown 45.2 8:32 10:32 12:32 14:32 16:32 18:02 18:32 19:02 20:17 22:17 0:17 Shelly 48.7 8:36 10:36 12:36 14:36 16:36 18:06 18:36 19:06 20:21 22:21 0:21 Next Train: 9:03 11:03 13:03 15:03 17:03 L 19:03 L 21:03 L L

Southbound Miles 6401 6403 6405 6407 6409 6411 6413 6415 6417 6419 6421 Shelly 48.7 5:18 6:03 6:33 7:03 9:03 11:03 13:03 15:03 17:03 19:03 21:03 Quakertown 45.2 5:22 6:07 6:37 7:07 9:07 11:07 13:07 15:07 17:07 19:07 21:07 Perkasie 40.0 5:33 6:18 6:48 7:18 9:18 11:18 13:18 15:18 17:18 19:18 21:18 Derstines 38.0 5:36 6:21 6:51 7:21 9:21 11:21 13:21 15:21 17:21 19:21 21:21 Telford 35.9 5:39 6:24 6:54 7:24 9:24 11:24 13:24 15:24 17:24 19:24 21:24 Franconia 33.7 5:43 6:28 6:58 7:28 9:28 11:28 13:28 15:28 17:28 19:28 21:28 Hatfield 32.1 5:46 6:31 7:01 7:31 9:31 11:31 13:31 15:31 17:31 19:31 21:31 Lansdale 29.4 5:52 6:37 7:07 7:37 9:37 11:37 13:37 15:37 17:37 19:37 21:37 West Point 27.6 5:55 6:40 7:10 7:40 9:40 11:40 13:40 15:40 17:40 19:40 21:40 Blue Bell 24.3 6:00 6:45 7:15 7:45 9:45 11:45 13:45 15:45 17:45 19:45 21:45 East Norriton 21.7 6:05 6:50 7:20 7:50 9:50 11:50 13:50 15:50 17:50 19:50 21:50 Norristown T.C. 18.6 6:15 7:00 7:30 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 Temple University 3.2 6:37 7:22 7:52 8:22 10:22 12:22 14:22 16:22 18:22 20:22 22:22 Market East Station 1.4 6:43 7:28 7:58 8:28 10:28 12:28 14:28 16:28 18:28 20:28 22:28 Suburban Station 0.9 6:47 7:32 8:02 8:32 10:32 12:32 14:32 16:32 18:32 20:32 22:32 30th Street Station 0.0 6:51 7:36 8:06 8:36 10:36 12:36 14:36 16:36 18:36 20:36 22:36 Next Train: 7:03 L L 9:03 11:03 13:03 15:03 17:03 18:48 20:48 22:48

L - Indicates going trainset is out of service.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 101

FIGURE 28. ALTERNATIVE 2 TIME-DISTANCE DIAGRAM OF REPRESENTATIVE WEEKDAY SCHEDULE

12:15 AM

11:15 PM

10:15 PM

9:15 PM

8:15 PM

7:15 PM

6:15 PM

5:15 PM

4:15 PM

3:15 PM

2:15 PM

1:15 PM

12:15 PM

11:15 AM

10:15 AM

9:15 AM

8:15 AM

7:15 AM

6:15 AM

5:15 AM Milepost: 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 t t asie k Shelly Telford Hatfield Per Blue Bell Lansdale Derstines Franconia West Poin 30th Stree Quakertown East Norriton Norristown TC

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 102

FIGURE 29. ALTERNATIVES 2A & 2B TIME-DISTANCE DIAGRAM OF REPRESENTATIVE WEEKDAY SCHEDULE

12:15 AM

11:15 PM

10:15 PM

9:15 PM

8:15 PM

7:15 PM

6:15 PM

5:15 PM

4:15 PM

3:15 PM

2:15 PM

1:15 PM

12:15 PM

11:15 AM

10:15 AM

9:15 AM

8:15 AM

7:15 AM

6:15 AM

5:15 AM Milepost: 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 t t t v asie tree Uni k S Shelly e Marke Telford Hatfield uburban Per Blue Bell Lansdale Derstines S Franconia West Poin 30th Quakertown Templ East Norriton Norristown TC

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 103

7.2.4. Travel Demand Forecasting A more detailed analysis of the travel demand potential was conducted for the Lead Alternative and the two variations. Analysis was based on the DVRPC model output with enhancements provided by the PB Team to improve its sensitivity to commuter rail service frequencies and to account for varying station access characteristics. DVRPC prepared the input data and performed 1997 and 2020 No-Build runs to ensure reliable model operation under the supervision of PB. DVRPC prepared revisions to zones and highway and transit networks to focus the level of detail in the study corridor. The PB team coded the highway and transit network changes for the 2020 “Build” alternatives. Existing Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the corridor were disaggregated to provide a finer mesh for analysis and access evaluation. PB split the existing zones, then DVRPC recoded the centroid connectors and modified the highway and transit links where needed to provide the desired level of detail. DVRPC provided revised 1995 demographic and employment data for the split TAZs, based on aerial photographs and maps. The infrastructure changes associated with each alternative were coded into the networks. Relevant new development was identified and reflected in the runs of the Build Alternatives. DVRPC reviewed the 1995 simulation, data, and models, and ran and calibrated the 1995 simulation, then prepared and ran the 2020 No-Build alternative. They provided the PB team with the simulation model, trip tables, other supporting data including TAZ data, highway and transit networks, and all computer files needed to run the simulation for the corridor in PB’s office. The output of the model by station is presented in Table 35 for Alternative 2 and in Table 36 for Alternatives 2A and 2B. The model output expresses patronage forecasts in terms of passenger productions and attractions by station (the first two shade columns). In terms of transit ridership, a production represents the origin end of a passenger’s round trip, while an attraction represents the destination end of a passenger’s round trip. For example, consider a traditional commuter journey to work starting at Quakertown Station going to an employment site near 30th Street Station. The model would enumerate that journey four times: • Two productions at Quakertown Station, representing a passenger boarding a train in the morning and alighting upon return in the evening; and • Two attractions at 30th Street Station, representing a passenger alighting from a train in the morning and boarding in the evening for a return trip home. Thus, forecasted passenger boardings at a given station are the sum of one-half of the model productions and attractions at that station (the “Ons” column, which equals the “Offs” column under the assumption that forecasted commuter journeys are symmetrical). The modeling process employed for this feasibility study was not subjected to the same level of scrutiny and repetition normally afforded by a more detailed study, such as a transportation investment study. Therefore, the patronage forecast is expressed in terms of a range. Not all passengers would be new transit riders. A portion of the projected ridership would be existing SEPTA riders diverted from the existing Route R5 or Route R6 services. Table 37 provides a summary of the ridership forecast, annualized and accounting for diverted ridership. For Alternative 2, 2020 weekday ridership was forecasted to range from 2,620 to 4,267 passenger trips. The model forecasts that 65 percent of these passengers (1,703 to 2,773 trips) would represent new transit riders. For Alternatives 2A and 2B, 2020 weekday ridership was forecasted to range from 4,181 to 6,809 passenger trips. The model forecasts that 47 percent of these passengers (1,965 to 3,200 trips) would represent new transit riders.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 104

TABLE 35. ALTERNATIVE 2 FORECASTED WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP Low Range High Range Productions Attractions Ons Offs Productions Attractions Ons Offs Shelly 176 0 88 88 286 0 143 143 Quakertown 278 1 139 139 453 1 227 227 Perkasie 331 5 168 168 539 8 274 274 Derstines 69 3 36 36 112 5 59 59 Telford 309 29 169 169 504 48 276 276 Franconia 97 6 52 52 158 10 84 84 Hatfield 188 37 113 113 306 61 183 183 Lansdale 441 242 341 341 718 394 556 556 West Point 113 71 92 92 185 115 150 150 Blue Bell 104 11 57 57 169 17 93 93 East Norriton 245 37 141 141 400 61 230 230 Norristown 268 278 273 273 436 452 444 444 30th Street 0 1,901 950 950 0 3,095 1,548 1,548 Bethlehem Br. 1,449 81 765 765 2,359 132 1,246 1,246 Lansdale 441 242 341 341 718 394 556 556 Stony Creek Br. 462 119 291 291 753 193 473 473 Norristown 268 278 273 273 436 452 444 444 Center City 0 1,901 950 950 0 3,095 1,548 1,548

Total 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 4,267 4,267 4,267 4,267

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 105

TABLE 36. ALTERNATIVES 2A & 2B FORECASTED WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP Low Range High Range Productions Attractions Ons Offs Productions Attractions Ons Offs Shelly 200 0 100 100 326 0 163 163 Quakertown 297 0 149 149 484 1 242 242 Perkasie 370 6 188 188 602 10 306 306 Derstines 82 4 43 43 133 6 70 70 Telford 342 28 185 185 557 45 301 301 Franconia 127 5 66 66 207 8 107 107 Hatfield 216 38 127 127 352 62 207 207 Lansdale 1,102 228 665 665 1,795 372 1,083 1,083 West Point 142 73 107 107 231 119 175 175 Blue Bell 146 11 78 78 237 19 128 128 East Norriton 322 36 179 179 524 59 292 292 Norristown 787 270 529 529 1,282 440 861 861 Temple 46 152 99 99 75 248 161 161 Market East 3 1,661 832 832 4 2,705 1,355 1,355 Suburban 0 1,303 651 651 0 2,122 1,061 1,061 30th Street 0 365 183 183 0 595 298 298 Bethlehem Br. 1,634 81 858 858 2,661 132 1,397 1,397 Lansdale 1,102 228 665 665 1,795 372 1,083 1,083 Stony Creek Br. 609 120 365 365 992 196 594 594 Norristown 787 270 529 529 1,282 440 861 861 Center City 49 3,481 1,765 1,765 79 5,669 2,874 2,874

Total 4,181 4,181 4,181 4,181 6,809 6,809 6,809 6,809 The revenue resulting from the total and new ridership associated with each alternative was calculated, using average fare figures provided by SEPTA for each fare zone. The revenue forecasts are also summarized in Table 37. The two alternatives operating through Center City Philadelphia generate the greatest total revenues, but a greater proportion of their passenger are existing transit riders diverted to the new service. When this is accounted for, the advantages of the CCCC alternatives in terms of new revenue are modest in comparison to base Alternative 2.

TABLE 37. SUMMARY OF FORECASTED RIDERSHIP AND REVENUES Alternative 2 Alternatives 2A & 2B Low Range High Range Low Range High Range Weekday Trips 2,620 trips 4,267 trips 4,181 trips 6,809 trips Annual Trips 759,754 trips 1,237,314 trips 1,212,551 trips 1,974,726 trips New Passengers 65% 65% 47% 47% New Trips (Weekday) 1,703 trips 2,773 trips 1,965 trips 3,200 trips New Trips (Annual) 493,840 trips 804,254 trips 569,899 trips 928,121 trips Total Revenue $ 4,302,931 $ 7,007,631 $ 6,158,196 $ 10,029,062 New Revenue $ 2,796,905 $ 4,554,960 $ 2,894,352 $ 4,713,659

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 106

7.2.5. Operating and Capital Cost Estimates

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE Capital costs were estimated for the alternatives in a manner similar to that employed in Phase One. Unlike the previous effort, however, Phase Two required an absolute rather than relative assessment of costs. Greater scrutiny was focused on smaller elements of each alternative as well as “soft” costs associated with subsequent design and construction steps necessary for implementation. The capital cost estimate for each alternative is summarized in Table 38. Tables 40 through 42 on the following pages provide a more detailed accounting for each alternative individually.

TABLE 38. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES Alternative 2 Alternative 2A Alternative 2B Civil and Structural Works $ 32,786,160 $ 32,632,560 $ 32,632,560 Track Systems $ 20,157,552 $ 20,032,752 $ 20,032,752 Signal and Systems $ 19,372,818 $ 19,280,416 $ 27,121,291 Stations and Facilities $ 13,873,000 $ 15,765,500 $ 15,765,500 Rolling Stock $ 36,900,000 $ 65,900,000 $ 51,400,000 Add-On Costs/Contingency $ 57,127,508 $ 60,970,962 $ 64,382,304 Total Capital Costs $ 180,217,035 $ 214,582,189 $ 211,334,407

OPERATING COST ESTIMATE Operating costs were likewise estimated for the alternatives in a manner similar to that employed in Phase One, but on a more absolute estimate. Estimates of the annual operating costs for each alternative is summarized in Table 39. Tables 43 through 45 on the following pages provide a more detailed accounting for each alternative individually.

TABLE 39. SUMMARY OF ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATES Alternative 2 Alternative 2A Alternative 2B Transportation $ 2,614,726 $ 2,425,228 $ 2,391,206 Vehicle Maintenance $ 1,043,247 $ 1,041,108 $ 1,041,108 Maintenance of Way $ 1,130,659 $ 1,122,705 $ 1,439,508 Administration $ 814,067 $ 780,137 $ 828,210 Total Operating Costs $ 5,602,699 $ 5,369,178 $ 5,700,032 New Revenue (Average) $ 3,675,933 $ 3,804,006 $ 3,804,006 Operating Deficit $ 1,926,767 $ 1,565,172 $ 1,896,026 Operating Ratio 66% 71% 67% Applying the average of the revenues from Table 37 to each alternative, it is possible to determine their operating deficits and operating ratios (annual passenger revenue divided by annual operating expense, also referred to as the “farebox recovery ratio”). These values have been added to Table 39. All three of the alternatives achieve operating ratios in excess of the current average value for SEPTA regional rail services (44 percent in FY1999). This is typical for outlying extensions of the regional rail system as the passengers the services attract generally travel longer distances and pay the highest fares. Furthermore, incremental extensions of existing service do not require repeating many core system expenses (e.g.: shops, terminals, share station).

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 107

TABLE 40. ALTERNATIVE 2 DETAILED CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Unit Costs Cost Parameters Costs Cost per Cost per Single Double Cost per Unit Extended Units Single Double Track Track Category Unit Quantity Items Track Track Quantity Quantity Civil and Structural Works $ 32,786,160 Rehabilitate Existing At-Grade Roadbed Route Ft $ 128 $ 153 128,328 21,120 $ 19,657,344 Highway/Railroad Grade Crossing Route Ft $ 130 $ 158 2,760 - $ 358,800 Existing Bridge Remediation Each $ 150,000 7 $ 1,050,000 Environmental Mitigation Route Ft $ 56 152,208 $ 8,523,648 Noise and Vibration Mitigation Route Ft $ 21 152,208 $ 3,196,368 Track Systems $ 20,157,552 Install Ballasted Track (Relay Existing Rail) Route Ft $ 104 $ 245 128,328 21,120 $ 18,520,512 Specialwork - Single Crossover - Ballasted Each $ 125,000 8 $ 1,000,000 Terminal Track Appliances - Ballasted Each $ 2,500 $ 5,000 - 1 $ 5,000 Precast Crossing Panel Track Route Ft $ 229 $ 458 2,760 - $ 632,040 Signals and Systems $ 19,372,816 Install Third Rail (Direct Fixation) Route Ft $ 140 $ 280 - - $ - Traction Power System (DC Substation) Route Ft $ 52 $ 95 - - $ - CTC Signal System Route Ft $ 77 $ 117 131,088 21,120 $ 12,564,816 Highway/Railroad Grade Crossing Protection Each $ 148,000 46 $ 6,808,000 Stations and Facilities $ 13,873,000 At-Grade Station - 500 ft Platform Each $ 406,000 $1933,800 0 - $ 4,060,000 Parking (surface lot) Space $ 1,500 2,000 $ 3,000,000 Layover & Running Repair Facility Coach $ 378,500 18 $ 6,813,000 Rolling Stock $ 36,900,000 Diesel-Electric Locomotive Each $ 2,500,000 5 $ 12,500,000 Dual Power Diesel-Electric Locomotive (AC Catenary) Each $ 7,000,000 - $ - Dual Power Diesel-Electric Locomotive (DC Third Rail) Each $ 4,100,000 - $ - Passenger Coach - Push Pull Trailer Each $ 1,300,000 13 $ 16,900,000 Passenger Coach - Push Pull Cab Car Each $ 1,500,000 5 $ 7,500,000 Add-On Factors $ 57,127,508 Engineering & Management $ 19,082,906 Design Contingency $ 8,618,953 Construction Contingency $ 17,237,906 Project Insurance $ 6,033,267 Agency Costs $ 6,154,476 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS: $ 180,217,036

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 108

TABLE 41. ALTERNATIVE 2A DETAILED CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Unit Costs Cost Parameters Costs Cost per Cost per Single Double Cost per Unit Extended Units Single Double Track Track Category Unit Quantity Items Track Track Quantity Quantity Civil and Structural Works $ 32,632,560 Rehabilitate Existing At-Grade Roadbed Route Ft $ 128 $ 153 127,128 21,120 $ 19,503,744 Highway/Railroad Grade Crossing Route Ft $ 130 $ 158 2,760 - $ 358,800 Existing Bridge Remediation Each $ 150,000 7 $ 1,050,000 Environmental Mitigation Route Ft $ 56 152,208 $ 8,523,648 Noise and Vibration Mitigation Route Ft $ 21 152,208 $ 3,196,368 Track Systems $ 20,032,752 Install Ballasted Track (Relay Existing Rail) Route Ft $ 104 $ 245 127,128 21,120 $ 18,395,712 Specialwork - Single Crossover - Ballasted Each $ 125,000 8 $ 1,000,000 Terminal Track Appliances - Ballasted Each $ 2,500 $ 5,000 - 1 $ 5,000 Precast Crossing Panel Track Route Ft $ 229 $ 458 2,760 - $ 632,040 Signals and Systems $ 19,280,416 Install Third Rail (Direct Fixation) Route Ft $ 140 $ 280 - - $ - Traction Power System (DC Substation) Route Ft $ 52 $ 95 - - $ - CTC Signal System Route Ft $ 77 $ 117 129,888 21,120 $ 12,472,416 Highway/Railroad Grade Crossing Protection Each $ 148,000 46 $ 6,808,000 Stations and Facilities $ 15,765,500 At-Grade Station - 500 ft Platform Each $9406,000 $133,800 0 - $ 4,060,000 Parking (surface lot) Space $ 1,500 2,000 $ 3,000,000 Layover & Running Repair Facility Coach $ 378,500 23 $ 8,705,500 Rolling Stock $ 65,900,000 Diesel-Electric Locomotive Each $ 2,500,000 - $ - Dual Power Diesel-Electric Locomotive (AC Catenary) Each $ 7,000,000 5 $ 35,000,000 Dual Power Diesel-Electric Locomotive (DC Third Rail) Each $ 4,100,000 - $ - Passenger Coach - Push Pull Trailer Each $ 1,300,000 18 $ 23,400,000 Passenger Coach - Push Pull Cab Car Each $ 1,500,000 5 $ 7,500,000 Add-On Factors $ 60,970,962 Engineering & Management $ 20,837,246 Design Contingency $ 8,771,123 Construction Contingency $ 17,542,246 Project Insurance $ 6,139,786 Agency Costs $ 7,680,561 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS: $ 214,582,190

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 109

TABLE 42. ALTERNATIVE 2B DETAILED CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Unit Costs Cost Parameters Costs Cost per Cost per Single Double Cost per Unit Extended Units Single Double Track Track Category Unit Quantity Items Track Track Quantity Quantity Civil and Structural Works $ 32,632,560 Rehabilitate Existing At-Grade Roadbed Route Ft $ 128 $ 153 127,128 21,120 $ 19,503,744 Highway/Railroad Grade Crossing Route Ft $ 130 $ 158 2,760 - $ 358,800 Existing Bridge Remediation Each $ 150,000 7 $ 1,050,000 Environmental Mitigation Route Ft $ 56 152,208 $ 8,523,648 Noise and Vibration Mitigation Route Ft $ 21 152,208 $ 3,196,368 Track Systems $ 20,032,752 Install Ballasted Track (Relay Existing Rail) Route Ft $ 104 $ 245 127,128 21,120 $ 18,395,712 Specialwork - Single Crossover - Ballasted Each $ 125,000 8 $ 1,000,000 Terminal Track Appliances - Ballasted Each $ 2,500 $ 5,000 - 1 $ 5,000 Precast Crossing Panel Track Route Ft $ 229 $ 458 2,760 - $ 632,040 Signals and Systems $ 27,121,291 Install Third Rail (Direct Fixation) Route Ft $ 140 $ 280 - 20,909 $ 5,854,520 Propulsion Power Supply (DC Substation) Route Ft $ 52 $ 95 - 20,909 $ 1,986,355 CTC Signal System Route Ft $ 77 $ 117 129,888 21,120 $ 12,472,416 Highway/Railroad Grade Crossing Protection Each $ 148,000 46 $ 6,808,000 Stations and Facilities $ 15,765,500 At-Grade Station - 500 ft Platform Each $ 406,000 $1933,800 0 - $ 4,060,000 Parking (surface lot) Space $ 1,500 2,000 $ 3,000,000 Layover & Running Repair Facility Coach $ 378,500 23 $ 8,705,500 Rolling Stock $ 51,400,000 Diesel-Electric Locomotive Each $ 2,500,000 - $ - Dual Power Diesel-Electric Locomotive (AC Catenary) Each $ 7,000,000 - $ - Dual Power Diesel-Electric Locomotive (DC Third Rail) Each $ 4,100,000 5 $ 20,500,000 Passenger Coach - Push Pull Trailer Each $ 1,300,000 18 $ 23,400,000 Passenger Coach - Push Pull Cab Car Each $ 1,500,000 5 $ 7,500,000 Add-On Factors $ 64,382,304 Engineering & Management $ 21,680,421 Design Contingency $ 9,555,210 Construction Contingency $ 19,110,421 Project Insurance $ 6,688,647 Agency Costs $ 7,347,605 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS: $ 211,334,407

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 110

TABLE 43. ALTERNATIVE 2 DETAILED ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATE

Unit Costs Costs Cost per Unit Extended Units Catagory Unit Quantity Items Transportation $ 2, 614,726 Train Crews and Supervision Train Mile $ 4.57 347,749 $ 1 ,589,213 Electric Traction Power Train Mile (Electric) $ 2.50 - $ - Diesel Locomotive Fuel Train Mile (Non-Electric) $ 2.19 347,749 $ 761 ,570 Miscellaneous Materials Train Mile $ 0.11 347,749 $ 3 8,252 Amtrak Access Fees Train Mile (Amtrak) $ 6.21 36,343 $ 225 ,690 Maintenance of Equipment $ 1, 043,247 Diesel Train Maintenance Train Mile $ 3.00 347,749 $ 1 ,043,247 Maintenance of Way $ 1, 130,659 Inspection & Maintenance (Electric) New Electric Track Mile $ 40,000 - $ - Inspection & Maintenance (Non-Electric) New Non-Electric Tk Mi $ 35,000 32.3 $ 1,130 ,659 Administration $ 814,0 67 Administration Subtotal 17% $ 814 ,067 TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS: $ 5, 602,699

TABLE 44. ALTERNATIVE 2A DETAILED ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATE

Unit Costs Costs Cost per Unit Extended Units Category Unit Quantity Items Transportation $ 2,42 5,228 Train Crews and Supervision Train Mile $ 4.57 347,036 $ 1,585,95 5 Electric Traction Power Train Mile (Electric) $ 2.50 132,544 $ 331,36 0 Diesel Locomotive Fuel Train Mile (Non-Electric) $ 2.19 214,493 $ 469,74 0 Miscellaneous Materials Train Mile $ 0.11 347,036 $ 38,17 4 Amtrak Access Fees Train Mile (Amtrak) $ 6.21 - $ - Maintenance of Equipment $ 1,04 1,108 Diesel Train Maintenance Train Mile $ 3.00 347,036 $ 1,041,10 8 Maintenance of Way $ 1,12 2,705 Inspection & Maintenance (Electric) New Electric Track Mile $ 40,000 - $ - Inspection & Maintenance (Non-Electric) New Non-Electric Tk Mi $ 35,000 32.1 $ 1,122,70 5 Administration $ 78 0,137 Administration Subtotal 17% $ 780,13 7 TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS: $ 5,36 9,178

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 111

TABLE 45. ALTERNATIVE 2B DETAILED ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATE

Unit Costs Costs

Cost per Unit Extended Units Category Unit Quantity Items

Transportation $ 2,39 1,206 Train Crews and Supervision Train Mile $ 4.57 347,036 $ 1,585,95 5 Electric Traction Power Train Mile (Electric) $ 2.50 22,803 $ 57,00 8 Diesel Locomotive Fuel Train Mile (Non-Electric) $ 2.19 324,233 $ 710,07 0 Miscellaneous Materials Train Mile $ 0.11 347,036 $ 38,17 4 Amtrak Access Fees Train Mile (Amtrak) $ 6.21 - $ - Maintenance of Equipment $ 1,04 1,108 Diesel Train Maintenance Train Mile $ 3.00 347,036 $ 1,041,10 8 Maintenance of Way $ 1,43 9,508 Inspection & Maintenance (Electric) New Electric Track Mile $ 40,000 7.9 $ 316,80 3 Inspection & Maintenance (Non-Electric) New Non-Electric Tk Mi $ 35,000 32.1 $ 1,122,70 5 Administration $ 82 8,210 Administration Subtotal 17% $ 828,21 0 TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS: $ 5,70 0,032

8. EVALUATION OF THE LEAD ALTERNATIVE

The basic question posed in these investigations remains: Do any of these alternatives represent viable opportunities for new rail service? In order to frame these operating and financial statistics in a meaningful context for evaluation, the Federal Transit Administration’s National Transit Database employs six performance measures to objectively gauge service efficiency, cost effectiveness, and service effectiveness: • Operating Expense per Vehicle Mile. • Operating Expense per Vehicle Hour. • Operating Expense per Passenger Mile. • Operating Expense per Passenger Trip. • Passenger Trips per Vehicle Mile. • Passenger Trips per Vehicle Hour. Table 46 compares the three alternatives to the SEPTA regional rail network and the PennDOT Keystone service. Information concerning these operations was drawn from the Transit Profiles—1998 National Transit Database Report Year. TABLE 46. COMPARATIVE OPERATING PERFORMANCE MEASURES SEPTA PennDOT Alternative Alternative Alternative RRD Keystone 2 2A 2B Service Efficiency Operating Expense per Vehicle Mile $ 10.58 $ 8.66 $ 3.12 $ 3.00 $ 3.18 Operating Expense per Vehicle Hour $ 290.90 $ 450.51 $ 76.11 $ 72.94 $ 77.43 Cost Effectiveness Operating Expense per Passenger Mile $ 0.38 $ 0.35 $ 0.19 $ 0.13 $ 0.14 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip $ 5.37 $ 26.73 $ 8.63 $ 7.17 $ 7.61 Service Effectiveness Passenger Trips per Vehicle Mile 1.97 0.32 0.36 0.42 0.42 Passenger Trips per Vehicle Hour 54.19 16.85 8.82 10.18 10.18

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 112

All three of the Quakertown-Stony Creek alternatives are forecasted to outperform either of the comparative services in every performance measure except one: operating expense per passenger trip. In this category, the existing SEPTA regional rail network bests all three of the alternatives. This suggests that, while the proposed alternatives represent efficient and effective services, they are less cost-effective than the existing SEPTA system. This is to be expected, however, for a long-distance rail service extension, which needs to travel further to serve relatively low density population centers. Comparing the cost-effectiveness of the three alternatives to the PennDOT Keystone service to Harrisburg demonstrates the unavoidable cost implications of longer distance rail services.

8.1. Follow-Up Public Meetings Two additional public meetings were conducted to review the findings of the Phase Two investigations with the general public, gather comments, and further gauge interest for a restoration of passenger rail service in the Corridor. The preliminary alternatives and the three variations of Alternative 2 with their associated costs were presented at both public meetings to facilitate discussion. As with the initial public meetings, one meeting was held in Quakertown Borough on June 5, 2000, which was attended by approximately 46 people. The venue for second meeting, however, was moved to Upper Gwynedd Township. The previous meeting in Hatfield Township did not attract residents who live along the Stony Creek Branch and it was felt that their concerns would differ sufficiently from Montgomery County residents who live along the Bethlehem Branch. The Upper Gwynedd Township meeting was held on June 8, 2000, with approximately 80 people in attendance. Public response to the service proposal was unanimously positive at the Quakertown meeting, including the submission of a petition to the Bucks County representative signed by 400 local citizens supporting restoration of passenger rail service. In contrast, the response at the Upper Gwynedd Township meeting was mixed, the negative comments revolved around the concerns of residents living along the Stony Creek Branch immediately south of Lansdale, where the alignment rests on a high fill. Their basic concerns were: • Due to the elevated nature of the alignment, increased use of the Stony Creek Branch would be intrusive, especially on backyard activities that abut the right of way. • The mitigation strategies proposed elsewhere for the Stony Creek Branch (a combination of fencing, berms and plantings) would not be effective in their community, where lot sizes are smaller, the railroad is elevated, and right of way widths are limited. • Increased train traffic through Stony Creek Branch grade crossings immediately south of Lansdale, coupled with the existing Route R5 train traffic through nearby SEPTA Main Line grade crossings, would bring automobile traffic to a standstill. • People living along the Bethlehem Branch would incur similar inconveniences associated with a new rail service (increased traffic, noise, vibrations), but these would be partially offset by its benefits (increased mobility and property values). In contrast, people who live along the Stony Creek Branch immediately south of Lansdale would incur the inconveniences without offsetting benefits as the existing Route R5 rail service is already nearby. In response to these concerns, it was pointed out that the traffic and neighborhood impacts of a Stony Creek Branch rail service would be further investigated in much greater detail through the federally-prescribed Transportation Investment Study (TIS) process, should any of these concepts be subsequently advanced for implementation. Possible mitigation strategies were discussed, such as shifting the railroad to the parallel, ground-level alignment of the former Lehigh Valley Transit interurban right of way (now owned by PECO Energy) on the opposite side of the railroad embankment from the residential communities and using the existing embankment as a buffer. It was pointed out, however, that in-depth development of mitigation strategies was beyond the scope of the current study.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 113

In addition to these concerns, several positive comments were also received in support of the proposed rail service at the Upper Gwynedd Township meeting.

8.2. Determination of Feasibility It is the determination of this investigation that restoring passenger rail service over the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Lines would be both feasible and viable. At least one approach to implementing passenger rail service in the corridor (Alternative 2 with two additional variations) was identified which met locally acceptable standards for public transportation performance in terms of operating ratio and other financial and operational measures. This is not to say, however, that Alternative 2 should be considered as the only viable option for passenger rail service in the corridor. Upon more intensive analysis, any combination of preliminary alternatives analyzed in Phase One of this study could be deemed as equally worthwhile. Some concerns were identified that warrant further, more detailed analysis in the course of any subsequent investigation of passenger rail service in the corridor: • The functional capacity of the SEPTA Main Line to absorb additional peak period traffic between Jenkintown and Wayne Junction. • The functional capacity of the SEPTA Norristown Line to absorb additional traffic between Norristown and Center City given the possible increased traffic proposed for the Schuylkill Valley Metro Corridor by SEPTA’s MetroRail preferred alternative (under consideration in an independent SEPTA study). • The viability of dual-powered locomotives compatible with the existing SEPTA catenary system. • Mitigation strategies necessary to minimize the traffic and neighborhood impacts of any Stony Creek Branch rail service alternative on adjoining properties.

8.3. Next Steps As demonstrated by these investigations, passenger rail services incur significant amounts of operating and capital expenses. Implementing any of the services described by this study would require the cooperation and support of local, state and federal governments. Federal support for “new start” rail projects is subject to close scrutiny by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Congress. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) initiated the process that the federal government applies to make discretionary grants in support of major capital investment projects. All major transit and highway capacity expansions must be subjected to a Transportation Investment Study (TIS) prior to their inclusion in local transportation plans or the Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) maintained by the local metropolitan planning organization (in this case, DVRPC). The TIS requirement applies to all highway or transit improvements of substantial cost that are expected to have a significant effect on capacity, traffic, level of service or mode share at the transportation corridor scale. Executive Order 12893 further defines Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments, which require the systematic analysis of the costs and benefits of proposed major investments, the efficient management of infrastructure, and the encouragement of private-sector participation. According to federal regulations, a TIS must consider: • Direct and indirect costs of reasonable alternatives. • Mobility improvements. • Social, economic and environmental effects. • Safety. • Operating efficiencies. • Land use and economic development.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates QUAKERTOWN-STONY CREEK RAIL RESTORATION STUDY Final Report Page 114

• Financing. • Energy consumption. The ISTEA project planning process was streamlined under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)—the federal government’s current six-year surface transportation finance program that succeeded ISTEA in 1998. A traditional MIS or TIS is no longer required under TEA-21, although the planning process must still consider many of the same factors and concerns prescribed under ISTEA. Local areas may opt to compress the overall implementation schedule by conducting environmental investigations and preliminary engineering in parallel with the “new starts” application process for federal support. Taken as a whole, these options can significantly reduce the time and budget of implementing relatively straightforward rail projects. Federal support for “new start” rail projects is also highly competitive. For example, TEA-21 already authorizes 191 “new start” rail projects. A new passenger rail project in the Delaware Valley would need to compete on the national level against these more established “new start” projects for a limited pool of federal funding. As with any large-scale transportation project proposing to utilize federal funds, any proposed reactivation of passenger rail service in this corridor would need to undergo the planning processes mandated by FTA. The process provides a consistent mechanism through which highway, transit and integrated multimodal alternatives can be developed and evaluated through a single integrated process. It levels the playing field across modes and encourages the selection of alternatives that best address an area’s transportation needs, helping to assure that scarce public resources are put to their best use, particularly where flexible funds are being utilized. In this context, this preliminary study undertaken by the Bucks County Planning Commission should be recognized as the initial step in a comprehensive, coordinated and continuing planning process that is designed to provide a more complete understanding of the options available to address transportation problems before investment decisions are made.

9. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this investigation has determined that restoration of passenger rail service over the Bethlehem and Stony Creek Lines would be both feasible and viable in terms of operating ratio and other financial and operational measures of public transportation performance. There are significant capital costs associated with these options, however, which SEPTA, the Counties, and the Commonwealth must consider and prioritize relative to the other competing financial needs within the region. Any subsequent study should address the full range of alternatives for providing such service, as well as methods and mitigation strategies to minimize any adverse impacts on neighboring communities.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF in association with Norman Day Associates and KKO & Associates