TASK FORCE SUMMARY REPORT

Prepared for: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority

By: Urban Engineers, Inc.

In association with:

STV, Inc. AECOM Consulting Transportation Group Simone Collins Landscape Architecture

NOVEMBER 2007

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY...... 1 1.2 PROJECT IMPEDIMENTS...... 2 1.3 FORMATION OF TASK FORCE...... 3 2 PRELIMINARY SCREENING AND EVALUATIONS...... 3 2.1 TASK FORCE SELECTION OF PREFERRED LONG RANGE PROJECT...... 3 2.2 SCHUYLKILL VALLEY RAIL ASSESSMENT...... 6 3 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS ...... 8 3.1 STEP ONE SCREENING ANALYSIS...... 9 3.1.1 OPTIONS EVALUATED ...... 9 3.1.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS...... 9 3.1.3 TASK FORCE SELECTION OF PROJECT OPTIONS ...... 11 3.2 STEP TWO USER BENEFITS ANALYSIS ...... 12 3.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 12 3.2.2 CAPITAL COSTS...... 14 3.2.3 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS...... 16 3.2.4 RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE ...... 17 3.2.5 TRANSIT USER BENFITS...... 18 3.2.6 SUMMARY OF RESULTS...... 19 3.3 SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS ...... 20 3.3.1 OPTIONS EVALUATED ...... 20 3.3.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS...... 21 4 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS ...... 22 4.1 RIDERSHIP FORECASTING...... 23 4.1.1 THE DVRPC MODEL ...... 23 4.1.2 THE BERKS COUNTY MODEL ...... 23 4.2 PROJECT DEFINITION ...... 24 4.3 FUNDING OPTIONS ...... 24

Appendices:

A. Schematic Diagrams of Initial Screening Alternatives B. Schematic Diagrams of Step One Options C. Schematic Diagrams of Step Two Options D. Schematic Diagrams of Segmentation Options

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force i

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1 - MetroRail Service Plan...... 2 Exhibit 2 - Initial Screening Alternatives ...... 4 Exhibit 3 - Schematic Diagram of Selected Project Configuration ...... 5 Exhibit 4 - Summary of Schuylkill Valley Rail Assessment...... 7 Exhibit 5 - Step One Service Options...... 9 Exhibit 6 - Summary of Step One Analysis Results...... 10 Exhibit 7 - Key Step One Observations...... 11 Exhibit 8 - Summary of Step 2 Capital Costs...... 16 Exhibit 9 - Summary of Step 2 Annual Operating Costs...... 16 Exhibit 10 - Summary of Daily Boardings ...... 17 Exhibit 11 - Summary of User Benefit Results ...... 19 Exhibit 12 - Selected Rail Projects in Preliminary Engineering...... 19 Exhibit 13 - Summary of Segmentation Analysis Results...... 22

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force ii

1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to describe and summarize the work performed for the Governor's Task Force, which was formed in 2004 to review and evaluate possible ways to restructure the Schuylkill Valley Metro project so that it could be implemented in a timely manner within funding constraints.

1.1 PROJECT HISTORY

In 1998 the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and the Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA) completed a feasibility study to determine the viability of using existing rail rights-of-way for new rail passenger service in the Schuylkill Valley corridor from Center City to Reading. The study analyzed and identified a suitable alignment for rail service from Philadelphia to Reading and formulated a conceptual service plan that served as a basis for estimating ridership and capital and operating costs. The study identified two main options of providing rail service: a alternative and a alternative. Both were analyzed in detail, resulting in findings indicating that passenger rail service is a feasible alternative. Specifically, the study concluded that: it is possible to build and operate rail service in the corridor within existing rail rights-of-way; a significant number of riders would be attracted rivaling the most successful new systems in the United States; and that the cost to build the system as well as the operating costs of the service compare favorably with other systems and lines.

Based on the results of the feasibility study, a Major Investment Study/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (MIS/DEIS) was begun in November of 1998. The documents were published in September of 2001, and the MIS/DEIS concluded with public hearings in March of 2002. The MIS/DEIS evaluated several combinations of conventional commuter rail and light rail, a hybrid mode known as MetroRail, and improved bus services. The hybrid mode, MetroRail, was selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The primary characteristics of MetroRail include the following:

• Two services would operate: King of Prussia to Philadelphia via East Falls and Wyomissing to Philadelphia via Cynwyd • Both services would operate with 15 minute headways during peak periods and 30 minutes headways at other times • West of Norristown, MetroRail would operate within the existing Norfolk Southern Harrisburg Line right-of-way, but on separate tracks independent of main line freight train operations. • MetroRail vehicles would be electrically powered and would have style doors on the sides of the cars. • All stations would have full length high level platforms • Fare collection would be proof of payment • Trains would be staffed by one person (the engineer).

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 1 A schematic diagram of the MetroRail service plan is shown in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1 - MetroRail Service Plan

MetroRail was forecast to accommodate 47,800 weekday boardings in 2020 and generate 27,000 new weekday trips to the public transportation systems in Reading and greater Philadelphia. Additional annual operating costs (in 1999 dollars) were estimated to be $30.4 million, and the estimated construction cost was $1.4 billion. Adjusted to 2005 dollars, those costs become $36.3 million and $ 1.7 billion respectively.

1.2 PROJECT IMPEDIMENTS

In September 2001, a New Starts submittal request was made to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in accordance with the FTA's reporting requirements for projects seeking federal funds under the Section 5309 New Starts program. The report included a financial plan based on obtaining 80% of the capital funds from the federal Section 5309 program, and 20% from state and local sources. The total capital cost in year of expenditure dollars, taking into account inflation and the estimated time of construction, came to $1.8 billion.

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 2

In the 2002 the project received authorization to enter preliminary engineering and a Recommended rating in the FTA's Annual Report on New Starts to Congress.

In 2003 the financial plan was revised and updated to reflect a delay in the project's advancement and, due the expectation of limitations on the annual disbursement of Section 5309 funds, to include approximately $600 million in finance charges. These revisions brought the new project cost in year of expenditure dollars to $2.6 billion. In that year's FTA report, the project received a "Not Recommended" rating from the FTA based on the project's financial plan. A new FTA policy had been implemented limiting the Section 5309 participation to a maximum of 60% for major projects. Although the project received high marks for ridership performance and land use impacts, the financial plan, based on 80% New Starts funding, was not acceptable. The FTA also required that the project be developed in stages, with a limited Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) as the initial stage. The project was thus delayed while the potential for obtaining additional state and local funds to bring the non-federal share to 40% was investigated.

In 2004, the project again received a "Not Recommended", this time based on both the project financial plan and the FTA's newly developed Cost per User Benefit measure on which the project rated low.

1.3 FORMATION OF TASK FORCE

Given the ongoing development in the Schuylkill Valley corridor, increasing traffic congestion and a strong desire to extend rail service in the corridor, in January of 2004, the governor of Pennsylvania established a Task Force to review the project and reformulate it into a revised program that could be advanced within the limitations of federal and local funding. The Task Force was composed of representatives of Congressman Gerlach (6th Distinct - PA), the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), the FTA, the Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS), SEPTA, and BARTA, with the Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation as the chair. First meeting in January of 2004, the Task Force and its working group continued to meet periodically throughout 2004 and 2005.

2 PRELIMINARY SCREENING AND EVALUATIONS

The Task Force was charged with reviewing a full spectrum of modal and service options in the Schuylkill Valley corridor including diesel and electric commuter rail, MetroRail, and extension of the Route 100 light rail line. The primary focus was on developing a project that would serve the entire corridor as defined in the previous MIS/DEIS and have a capital cost within expected funding limitations.

2.1 TASK FORCE SELECTION OF PREFERRED LONG RANGE PROJECT

To establish a framework for discussion and consideration of alternatives, an initial set of four staged project alternatives was developed in February of 2004 representing a broad range of options including MetroRail, diesel commuter rail, extension of electric commuter rail, and

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 3 extension of the Route 100 light rail service. These alternatives and their estimated capital costs are described in Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 2 - Initial Screening Alternatives

STAGE ALT TOTAL TOTAL (2004 (2004 ALT DESCRIPTION STAGE MODEFROM TO VIA STAGE Million$) Million$) 1AMETRORAIL BUILT IN MR PHILA PLAZA-COURT E FALLS A $460 STAGES B MR PHILA PLAZA-COURT E FALLS MR PHILA PHOENIXVILLE CYNWYD B $440 C MR PHILA PLAZA-COURT E FALLS MR PHILA PHOENIXVILLE CYNWYD MR PHOENIXVILLE POTTSTOWN PH TUNNEL C $323 D MR PHILA PLAZA-COURT E FALLS MR PHILA PHOENIXVILLE CYNWYD MR PHOENIXVILLE POTTSTOWN PH TUNNEL MR POTTSTOWN WYOMISSING D $453 $1,676 2AROUTE 100 PLUS RT 100 HUGHES PARK PLAZA-COURT A $135 METRORAIL BUILT IN B RT 100 HUGHES PARK PLAZA-COURT STAGES PLUS DIESEL MR PHILA PLAZA-COURT E FALLS COMMUTER RAIL DCR VALLEY FORGE WYOMISSING BR TUNNEL B $576 SHUTTLE C RT 100 HUGHES PARK PLAZA-COURT MR PHILA PLAZA-COURT E FALLS MR PHILA PHOENIXVILLE CYNWYD DCR VALLEY FORGE WYOMISSING BR TUNNEL C $440 $1,151 3AROUTE 100 TO VALLEY RT 100 HUGHES PARK PLAZA-COURT A $135 FORGE PLUS B RT 100 HUGHES PARK PLAZA-COURT ELECTRIC COMMUTER RT 100 PLAZA-COURT VALLEY FORGE RAIL TO ECR PHILA VALLEY FORGE E FALLS PHOENIXVILLE PLUS DCR VALLEY FORGE WYOMISSING BR TUNNEL B $338 DIESEL COMMUTER C RT 100 HUGHES PARK PLAZA-COURT RAIL SHUTTLE TO RT 100 PLAZA-COURT VALLEY FORGE WYOMISSING ECR PHILA VALLEY FORGE E FALLS DCR VALLEY FORGE WYOMISSING BR TUNNEL ECR VALLEY FORGE PHOENIXVILLE C $154 $627 4AELECTRIC COMMUTER ECR PHILA VALLEY FORGE E FALLS RAIL TO PLAZA DCR VALLEY FORGE WYOMISSING BR TUNNEL A $213 COURT AND B ECR PHILA VALLEY FORGE E FALLS PHOENIXVILLE PLUS DCR VALLEY FORGE WYOMISSING BR TUNNEL DIESEL COMMUTER ECR VALLEY FORGE PLAZA-COURT B $155 RAIL SHUTTLE TO C ECR PHILA VALLEY FORGE E FALLS WYOMISSING DCR VALLEY FORGE WYOMISSING BR TUNNEL ECR VALLEY FORGE PLAZA-COURT ECR PHILA PHOENIXVILLE CYNWYD C $314 $682

LEGEND SERVICE TRAIN STATION FARE MODE NAME POWER PEAK BASE STAFFING PLATFORMS COLLECTION

ECR COMMUTER RAIL ELEC. 30 MIN 60 MIN 2+ PERSONS LOW TICKETS

DCR COMMUTER RAIL DIESEL 40 MIN NO SERVICE 2+ PERSONS LOW TICKETS

MR METRORAIL ELEC 15 MIN 30 MIN 1 PERSON HIGH PROOF OF PAYMENT

RT 100 ROUTE 100 ELEC 15 MIN 20 MIN 1 PERSON HIGH FAREBOX

Schematic diagrams of the initial screening alternatives are located in Appendix A. Due to the high cost of MetroRail, alternative services between Norristown and Reading were proposed with three significant differences from MetroRail that would result in a lower cost project:

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 4 • Trains operating to Wyomissing would use existing tracks, sharing them with Norfolk Southern freight trains. • Trains operating to Wyomissing would be diesel rather than electric. Diesel trains cannot operate through the existing Center City tunnel in Philadelphia, thus they would operate as a shuttle only to Norristown or Valley Forge, requiring passengers for Philadelphia to transfer to electric trains at one of those locations.

• In using Norfolk Southern's existing main tracks, the diesel trains would operate through the Black Rock tunnel in Phoenixville rather than over MetroRail's route, which is longer and requires much more construction and rehabilitation, including repair to the former tunnel in Phoenixville. However, the routing though the Black Rock tunnel does not permit service to a station in Oaks on the north side of the Schuylkill River, and it prevents placing the Phoenixville Station in a location that would serve as the centerpiece of that community's plans for redevelopment of the former Phoenix Steel industrial site.

Using the above four alternatives as a basis for the discussion, in April of 2004 the Task Force initially selected a two-stage project configuration as shown in Exhibit 3:

Exhibit 3 - Schematic Diagram of Selected Project Configuration

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 5 The project would consist of the following elements:

• A diesel commuter rail shuttle operating on Norfolk Southern tracks between either Norristown or Valley Forge and Wyomissing. Transfer between the diesel shuttle and electric R6 trains serving Center City Philadelphia would take place at either Norristown or Valley Forge. In the latter case the R6 service would be extended to Valley Forge in conjunction with initiation of the diesel shuttle.

• Restoration of R6 electric commuter rail service between Cynwyd and Ivy Ridge, and extension of the service via Valley Forge to King of Prussia (Plaza-Court).

• An extension of the Route 100 electric light rail to King of Prussia (Plaza-Court)

The capital cost of Stage A was estimated be in the range of $400 to $1,000 million in 2004 dollars, which the Task Force deemed to be in line with potential funding for an initial project stage. The wide range of the estimate was due to the conceptual level of analysis, uncertainty of the terminus of the diesel service (Valley Forge vs. Norristown) and the potential extension of the R6 electric service to Valley Forge in Stage A (shown extended in Exhibit 3), and uncertainty of the cost of using Norfolk Southern tracks for the diesel service. Advancement to Stage B was estimated to cost an additional $200 - $240 million.

2.2 SCHUYLKILL VALLEY RAIL ASSESSMENT

The MetroRail LPA was predicated on using separate tracks, constructed exclusively for MetroRail use within the Norfolk Southern right-of-way. In contrast, the proposed diesel shuttle service favored by the Task Force would use Norfolk Southern tracks between Norristown and Wyomissing. The impact of such shuttle train service on existing and future freight traffic and necessary improvements to the infrastructure to accommodate both as well as compensation to NS for use of the facilities was a significant unknown. Before proceeding further with its work, the Task Force decided that NS should perform a detailed study of what these impacts and costs would be. Thus NS undertook a study known as the Schuylkill Valley Rail Assessment (SVRA). That study included and was based on an operational simulation of passenger trains sharing tracks with both present and projected future levels of freight traffic between Norristown and Wyomissing. Initial results of the Norfolk Southern study were presented to the Task Force in October or 2004.

Completed in March 2005, the study proposed a three stage project that differed from the Task Force's initial preferred alternative in three significant ways:

• In the first two stages, the diesel shuttles would operate through from Wyomissing to the lower level of in Philadelphia where passengers could transfer to other SEPTA commuter rail and transit services to reach Center City.

• In the third stage, the trains from Wyomissing would operate directly through the Center City tunnel by converting to the use of dual-power locomotives that would operate on 3rd rail DC power to be installed through the tunnel

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 6

• In lieu of extending R6 electric service to King of Prussia (Plaza-Court), that location would be served by a combination of a Norristown-King of Prussia light rail shuttle making use of a Route 100 extension to Plaza Court, and connecting with buses using a proposed busway between Plaza-Court and Valley Forge.

The NS plan also proposed some temporary station locations in the first Stage to expedite implementation and an additional station at Barmouth on the . In Stage 1 seven weekday roundtrips, mostly during peak hours, would be provided by diesel trains between Wyomissing and 30th Street Station. Also, the Cynwyd line would be restored between Cynwyd and Ivy Ridge, with the R6 West service increased to the same levels as the R6 East service and extended through to Elm St. in Norristown. In Stage 2 the diesel service would be increased to 16 round trips, 10 from Wyomissing and an additional 6 from Pottstown. Most of the additional service would be during off-peak hours. Also additional stations would be added included some to replace temporary Stage 1 stations. In Stage 3 the services from Wyomissing and Pottstown would be extended through the tunnel serving stations in Center City Philadelphia and terminating at Fern Rock in North Philadelphia. This would be accomplished by replacing the diesel locomotives with dual-power locomotives and installing a direct current (DC) third rail system on two tracks through the Center City tunnel. The table in Exhibit 4 summarizes the proposed three stages including estimated capital and operating costs and daily boardings (ridership).

Exhibit 4 - Summary of Schuylkill Valley Rail Assessment

STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 WYOMISSING - 30TH ST. WYOMISSING - 30TH ST. WYOMISSING - FERN ROCK* 7 WEEKDAY ROUND TRIPS 10 WEEKDAY ROUND TRIPS 10 WEEKDAY ROUND TRIPS SVM POTTSTOWN - 30TH ST. POTTSTOWN - FERN ROCK* 6 WEEKDAY ROUND TRIPS 6 WEEKDAY ROUND TRIPS SERVICES R6 EAST ELM ST. - 30TH ST. ELM ST. - 30TH ST. ELM ST. - 30TH ST. (VIA E. FALLS) EXISTING SERVICE LEVELS EXISTING SERVICE LEVELS EXISTING SERVICE LEVELS R6 WEST ELM ST.- SUBURBAN STA. ELM ST.- SUBURBAN STA. ELM ST.- SUBURBAN STA. VIA CYNWYD SAME SERVICE LEVEL AS R6 EAST SAME SERVICE LEVEL AS R6 EAST SAME SERVICE LEVEL AS R6 EAST SVM 5,500 6,500 7,000 PROJECTED DAILY R6 EAST 3,500 3,500 3,500 BOARDINGS R6 WEST 2,800 2,800 2,600 (2025) TOTAL 11,800 12,800 13,100 EST. RANGE OF CONSTRUCTION $213 - $256 $118 - $142 $100 - $119 START UP COSTS ACCESS $75 - $100 $125 - $175 - (Millions $2005) TOTAL $288 - $356 $243 - $317 $100 - $119 OPERATING COST $33.8 $46.2 $53.4 EST. ANNUAL NEW REVENUE $17.8 $19.4 $19.9 OPERATING COSTS DEFICIT $16.0 $26.8 $33.5 (Millions $2005) OPERATING RATIO 53% 42% 37% * VIA TUNNEL THROUGH CENTER CITY PHILADLEPHIA

Exhibit 4 does not include costs associated with the recommended Route 100 shuttle, busway, and associated bus changes for providing connections to King of Prussia. Projected boardings were developed using a pivot point analysis based on previous forecasts for the MetroRail LPA that were derived from the DVRPC regional model. Stage 1 construction costs include the cost of restoring the Cynwyd line to Ivy Ridge, new stations, improvements to existing stations including 30th St., improvements to track, signals, and related infrastructure on the NS Harrisburg line, cars and locomotives, and servicing and layover facilities. Stage 2 construction

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 7 costs include further improvements to NS's Harrisburg Line to accommodate the increased level of passenger service, additional cars and locomotives, and additional improvements in the vicinity of 30th St. Station. In stage 3 the construction costs are for installing a 3rd rail system through the tunnel, additional cars, and dual-power locomotives. Access charges in Stages 1 and 2 represent the cost of an easement for use of NS's Harrisburg Line for passenger service. The total project cumulative construction and access costs for Stages 1, 2, and 3 are estimated to be between $631 and $792 million.

Based on the results of the SVRA, especially the costs for access and construction to allow use of the NS Harrisburg line, the Task Force decided that the next step would be to merge and reconcile the SVRA information with the preferred project configuration previously identified by the Task Force. In doing so, and with the advisement of the FTA, it was decided that an extension of the Route 100 light rail line to King of Prussia, which has already undergone an Alternative Analysis on its own, would proceed as an independent project, and for purposes of ridership forecasts and other further SVM analysis, would be assumed to be in place and operating prior to initiation of any SVM service.

3 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The goal of the Task Force was to structure the SVM project in a way that it could be implemented in affordable stages within funding limitations, and be able to compete successfully with other projects vying for limited federal capital funds. Key measures would be the estimated construction cost of the project and the performance of the project as measured by the cost of transit user benefits, a key FTA measure in evaluating projects. The cost of user benefits (primarily travel time savings) is based on the ridership, and capital and operating costs of the proposed project as compared to similar measures for a baseline. The baseline consists of existing conditions and already programmed improvements plus the best low capital cost improvements that can reasonably be made to provide services similar to the proposed project.

Calculating user benefits requires use of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) travel demand forecasting model. The DVRPC model applicable to most of this project has separate components for peak, off peak, evening, and night time services. Since peak hour ridership and capital costs are the dominant factors affecting the performance of the project, a two-step analysis was used to help the Task Force focus on the most promising project configuration and staging scenario. Step one evaluated the peak hour ridership (using the DVRPC model and Berks County models) and capital costs for several different project scenarios consisting of various previously identified service components both singly and in combination to allow the Task Force to gauge which appeared most affordable and effective at attracting riders. These results were then used by the Task Force to define a staged project configuration for detailed analysis in Step 2. Step 2 would establish corresponding baselines for each stage, evaluate the costs (both capital and operating) and ridership using the full model for all time periods, and calculate the transit user benefits.

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 8

3.1 STEP ONE SCREENING ANALYSIS

The results of the Step One screening were presented to the Task Force in July of 2005.

3.1.1 OPTIONS EVALUATED

Nine different scenarios or options were evaluated in step one as listed in Exhibit 5.

Exhibit 5 - Step One Service Options

SERVICE OPTION SERVICE FROM TO VIA LEVEL 1 2A 2B345678 WYOMISSING 3OTH ST STA. 7 RTS X X X WYOMISSING 3OTH ST STA. 10 RTS X X X X POTTSTOWN 30TH ST. STA 6 RTS X X X X SVM WYOMISSING 3OTH ST STA. NOTE 3 10 RTS X POTTSTOWN 30TH ST. STA NOTE 3 6 RTS X WYOMISSING FERN ROCK NOTE 4 10 RTS X POTTSTOWN FERN ROCK NOTE 4 6 RTS X 30TH ST. STA. ELM ST. E. FALLS NOTE 1 X X X X X X R6 EAST CENTER CITY KING OF PRUSSIA E. FALLS NOTE 1 X X X SUBURBAN STA. CYNWYD CYNWYD NOTE 2 X X X R6 WEST CENTER CITY ELM ST. CYNWYD NOTE 1 X X X CENTER CITY KING OF PRUSSIA CYNWYD NOTE 1 X X X RT 100 NORRISTOWN KING OF PRUSSIA SHUTTLE NOTE 3 X

NOTES: 1. APPROX HEADWAYS OF 30 MIN PEAK/60 MIN BASE 2. 5 ROUND TRIPS 3. VIA ALTERNATE ROUTE THROUGH OAKS AND PHOENIXVILLE TOD SITE 4. VIA CENTER CITY TUNNEL RTS = ROUND TRIPS

Schematic diagrams of the Step 1 service options are located in Appendix B.

3.1.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The results of the Step One analysis are summarized in Exhibit 6.

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 9

Exhibit 6 - Summary of Step One Analysis Results

SCHUYLKILL VALLEY METRO STEP ONE ANALYSIS RESULTS

NO OPTION----> BUILD 12A2B345678

SERVICE ELEMENTS

EXISTING R6-NORRISTOWN SERVICEXXXX XX EXISTING R6-CYNWYD SERVICEXXXX R6 RESTORED CYNWYD/IVY RIDGE - ELM ST. EXTENSION X X X R6 (BOTH SERVICES ) KING OF PRUSSIA EXTENSION X X X RT 100 NORRISTOWN - KING OF PRUSSIA SHUTTLE X SVM LEVEL 1 SERVICE (DIESEL) PHILA - WYOMISSING 7 RTS 7 RTS 7RTS SVM LEVEL 2 SERVICE (DIESEL) PHILA - WYOMISSING 10 RTS 10 RTS 10 RTS 10 RTS 10 RTS 10 RTS SVM LEVEL 2 SERVICE (DIESEL) PHILA - POTTSTOWN 6 RTS 6 RTS 6 RTS 6 RTS 6 RTS 6 RTS SVM DUAL-POWER CENTER CITY SERVICE) X SVM SERVICE VIA OAKS/PHOENIXVILLE TOD X SVM WEEKEND SERVICE X X XXXX

CAPITAL COST ($2005, MILLIONS) CONSTRUCTION $223 $312 $365 $301 $520 $390 $406 $609 $768 NS ACCESS CHARGE $100 $275 $275 $100 $100 $275 $275 $275 $275 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $323 $587 $640 $401 $620 $665 $681 $884 $1,043

RIDERS (SVM, R6, RT 100 SHUTTLE) DAILY BOARDINGS 7,070 10,470 10,780 10,700 11,110 11,650 11,510 11,860 12,020 13,320 DAILY NEW BOARDINGS 2,400 2,400 2,300 2,400 2,700 2,400 2,500 2,600 3,200

ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST PER ANNUAL BOARDING ($2005) CONSTRUCTION ONLY $6 $8 $10 $8 $13 $10 $10 $14 $16 NS ACCESS CHARGE $2$6$6$2$2$6$6$6$5 TOTAL $9$14$16$10$15$15$15$19$21

RT = ROUND TRIPS

Review of the Step One results yielded several points that were useful in considering what options should be considered in more detail:

• Increasing the level of diesel service between Philadelphia and Pottstown/Wyomissing required significant additional capital investment in equipment and capacity improvements to Norfolk Southern as well as additional access charges, but attracted very few additional riders. This is attributed to the fact that the primary demand in the corridor is for commutation trips to Philadelphia, but most of the additional trips added in Options 2A and 2B were off peak trips. While the capital cost per boarding for the Option 1 service was $95,000, the capital cost per additional boarding in going from Option 1 to Option 2A or 2B was $852,000 or $1,378,260 respectively.

• Re-routing the Option 2 service via Oaks and the Phoenix Steel redevelopment site in Phoenixville (Option 2A) using the alignment previously selected for MetroRail in lieu of staying on the NS main line via the Black Rock tunnel added a very large capital cost with minimal benefit in terms of additional riders.

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 10 • Extending the Wyomissing service via the Center City tunnel to offer a one-seat ride to the heart of Center City Philadelphia attracted significant additional riders, but not as many as had been anticipated. Of the 1,300 additional boardings, only 600 would be new transit riders. It is believed that many of the additional boardings are due to exiting R6 riders switching to the dual-mode service for an express ride downtown.

• Restoration and extension of the R6 Cynwyd service to Elm St. attracted additional boardings to that service, but gained few new transit riders because some of the boardings are diversions from the existing R6 service via East Falls, which would provide overlapping service at stations west of Ivy Ridge.

• Adding a Norristown-King of Prussia Route 100 shuttle (Option 6) attracted only a modest number of boardings and new transit riders, but at low capital cost assuming that an extension of the Route 100 to King or Prussia is constructed under a separate project.

These observations are summarized in Exhibit 7.

Exhibit 7 - Key Step One Observations

CAPITAL DAILY DAILY NEW COST COST/ BOARDINGS RIDERS (MILLIONS) BOARDING LEVEL 1 DIESEL SERVICE 3,400 2,400 $323 $95,000 LEVEL 1 TO LEVEL 2 DIESEL 310 Minimal $264 $851,613 SERVICE EXTEND LEVEL 2 SERVICE TO 1,300 600 $159 $122,308 CENTER CITY ** EXTEND BOTH R6 SERVICES TO 1,180 300 $297 $251,695 KING OF PRUSSIA * EXTEND R6 CYNWYD SERVICE TO 640 Minimal $78 $121,875 ELM ST * ADD ROUTE 100 SHUTTLE * 360 100 $16 $44,444 LEVEL 2 DIESEL SERVICE VIA Minimal Minimal $53 Very High OAKS/PHOENIXVILLE TOD

* COST ASSUMES DIESEL SERVICE ALREADY IN PLACE ** COST ASSUMES LEVEL 2 DIESEL SERVICE IN PLACE

3.1.3 TASK FORCE SELECTION OF PROJECT OPTIONS

Following review and discussion at the Task Force meeting held on July 11, 2005, the Task Force selected the following five optional project configurations for more detailed analysis in Step Two. The results of the Step Two analysis were presented to the Task Force on October 17, 2005.

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 11 • Option 1: Diesel service (7 round trips) between Wyomissing and 30th St. Station (Same as in Step 1, Option1)

• Option 2: Dual power service (7 round trips) between Wyomissing and Center City Philadelphia via the Center City tunnel based on the use of dual-power locomotives and installation of DC third rail in the Center City tunnel.

• Option 3: Full electric service (7 round trips) between Wyomissing and Center City Philadelphia via the Center City tunnel based on the use of electric locomotives and extension of electrification from Norristown to Wyomissing.

• Option 4: Same as Option 2 with the addition extending both R6 services (via both Cynwyd and East Falls) to Plaza-Court (King of Prussia Mall).

• Option 5: Same as Option 3 with the addition extending both R6 services (via both Cynwyd and East Falls) to Plaza-Court (King of Prussia Mall).

3.2 STEP TWO USER BENEFITS ANALYSIS

The annualized cost per transit user benefit of a proposed project, a key measure used by the FTA in evaluating and comparing projects seeking federal new starts funding, requires the development and evaluation of a baseline for each build alternative (option) of the project. The baseline must be a relatively low capital cost option that provides similar service coverage as the build option.

3.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

The following describes the Baseline and the build options in the Step Two analysis. Schematic diagrams of these options are located in Appendix C.

3.2.1.1 OPTION 1

Build

Option 1 consists of 7 weekday round trips operating between Wyomissing and the lower level of 30th Street station via Cynwyd, offering connection there to SEPTA subway, trolley and bus services as well as and Transit services. The SVM service would require non-electrified restoration of the R6 Cynwyd line between Cynwyd and Ivy Ridge, a non- electrified connection to the R6 Norristown line at Ivy Ridge, and various improvements to the NS Harrisburg line between Norristown and Wyomissing. Trains would operate express between 30th St. Station and Norristown, and then service the following new station west of Norristown:

• Valley Forge • Phoenixville

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 12 • Royersford • Lower Pottsgrove • Pottstown • Monocacy • Reading • Wyomissing

Trains would operate with diesel locomotives and coaches in push/pull service.

Baseline

Five express bus routes would operate from new stations, primarily via US 422 and I-76 and making the following stops:

• Wyomissing, Reading, Norristown, and 30th St. • Monocacy, Valley Forge, Norristown, and 30th St. • Pottstown, Lower Pottsgrove, Norristown, and 30th St. • Royersford, Norristown, and 30th St. • Phoenixville, Valley Forge, Norristown, and 30th St

The park and ride stations would be at the same location as the proposed stations for the build alternative.

3.2.1.2 OPTIONS 2 & 3

Build

Options 2 & 3 are an enhancement to Option 1, extending the 7 round trips to and from Wyomissing through the Center City tunnel serving the upper level of 30th Street Station, Suburban Station, Market East Station, and Temple University Station as well as Wayne Junction and Fern Rock. An existing side track at Fern Rock would be used for terminating and turning the trains. These options would provide a one-seat ride to Center City Philadelphia, eliminating the need to transfer at 30th St to reach Center City. Operation of trains through the Center City Tunnel would be accomplished by one of two means.

Under Option 2, dual power locomotives capable of operating as diesel locomotives outside of the tunnel and as electric locomotives inside the tunnel would be used. This alternative would require the installation of a low voltage direct current (DC) third rail system from the upper level of 30th St. Station to Temple University Station. The locomotives would switch between the diesel and electric modes while at those station stops.

Under Alternative 3, electric locomotives would be used. This would require electrification of the NS Harrisburg line from Norristown to Wyomissing. The electrification would be a high voltage AC catenary system, similar to SEPTA's existing electrification system.

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 13 Baseline

The baseline for Options 2 & 3 would be the same express bus service as previously described under Option 1.

3.2.1.3 OPTIONS 4 & 5

Build

Options 4 & 5 include the 7 round trips between Wyomissing and Fern Rock as in Options 2 & 3 respectively, plus extension of both R6 services (via Cynwyd and via East Falls) to Plaza-Court (King of Prussia Mall). Additional construction required for these options include electrification of the restored Cynwyd line between Cynwyd and Ivy Ridge, electrification of the connection west of Ivy Ridge, and two new electrified tracks for exclusive R6 use between Norristown and Plaza-Court. Both R6 services would operate at approximately the same level as the existing R6 service via East Falls (30 minute peak/60 minute base headways) and include weekend service. Stations between Ivy Ridge and Plaza-Court would enjoy combined headways of 15 minute peak/30 minute base.

Baseline

The baseline for Options 2 & 3 would be the same express bus service as previously described under Option 1.

3.2.2 CAPITAL COSTS

The estimated capital costs for improvements to the NS Harrisburg Line, coaches and locomotives, shop and yard facilities, and third rail systems were based on the costs for those elements as developed by the SVRA and include access charges for use of the NS line as given in the SVRA. The remainder of the costs were developed based on the conceptual engineering previously completed for the SVM MIS/DEIS.

Capital costs derived from the SVRA were adjusted to include the same set of soft cost percentage rates for design, construction management, and program management as used for the SVM MIS/DEIS work, and to apply a uniform contingency of 20%. All costs were escalated to 2005 dollars.

Baseline

Capital costs cover the construction of express bus stations west of Norristown and the purchase of 30 motor coaches. The station costs include purchase of property, surface parking and drop off areas (except Reading), and self service ticket machines.

Option 1

The capital costs for Option 1 include the following major elements:

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 14 • Track and signal improvements on the NS line between Wyomissing and Norristown • Eight stations with low level platforms between Wyomissing and Norristown (ADA requires level platform boarding unless no feasible alternative exists. For purposes of the Task Force analysis, low level platforms were assumed to be acceptable due to the need to accommodate Norfolk Southern freight operations) • Non-electrified restoration of the Cynwyd line between Cynwyd and Ivy Ridge • A new non-electrified connection between Ivy Ridge and the existing R6 line via East Falls • Train layover facilities • Diesel locomotives and passenger coaches. • Miscellaneous property costs and a one-time access charge for use of the NS Harrisburg Line based on the frequency of passenger train operations.

Options 2 & 3

The capital costs for Options 2 & 3 are the same as for Option1 except for the following

• Option 2 includes installation of a DC third rail system on all four tracks of the Center City tunnel between the upper level of 30th St. Station and Temple Station including a DC power source, and purchase of dual-power locomotives in lieu of diesel locomotives.

• Option 3 includes electrification of the NS Harrisburg line between Wyomissing and Norristown as well as restoration of electrification between Ivy Ridge and Cynwyd and electrification of the Ivy Ridge connection, and purchase of electric locomotives in lieu of diesel locomotives.

Options 4 & 5

The capital costs of Options 4 & 5 are the same as for Options 2 & 3 respectively except that both include the additional costs of extending both R6 Services (via Cynwyd and via East Falls) to Plaza-Court (King of Prussia). The major elements of the additional costs are:

• New double track electrified alignment between Barbados Island (just west of Norristown) and Valley Forge including a new bridge/flyover structure of the west channel of the Schuylkill River and NS Harrisburg Line.

• New double track electrified alignment between Valley Forge and Plaza-Court, mostly on viaduct.

• New high level platform stations at Valley Forge (at grade) and First Avenue and Plaza- Court (both elevated).

• New high level platform station at 52nd St.

• Installation of high level platforms at existing stations between Wynnefield Avenue and Conshohocken.

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 15 • Additional electric MU cars

The capital costs are summarized in Exhibit 8. Costs are in 2005 dollars.

Exhibit 8 - Summary of Step 2 Capital Costs

OPTIONBASELINE12345 DIESEL DUAL-POWER ELECTRIC DUAL-POWER ELECTRIC WYOMISSING SERVICE EXPRESS BUS TO 30TH ST. VIA TUNNEL VIA TUNNEL VIA TUNNEL VIA TUNNEL ELECTRIC EXTENDED R6 SERVICE TO PLAZA-COURT ROADBED AND STRUCTURES 29,063,916 29,131,396 75,430,161 134,039,788 180,839,788 TRACKWORK 29,131,396 20,791,994 29,131,396 42,974,298 42,974,298 STATIONS 7,713,799 20,791,994 20,791,994 20,791,994 46,541,976 46,541,976 ELECTRIFICATION 24,254,968 103,109,133 39,351,417 115,323,770 SIGNALS 20,589,835 22,659,835 22,659,835 34,192,914 34,192,914 COMMUNICATIONS 4,756,362 4,756,362 4,756,362 13,923,471 13,923,471 FARE COLLECTION 727,059 1,038,656 1,038,656 1,038,656 2,325,002 2,325,002 PROPERTY & ACCESS CHARGES 2,901,220 112,177,076 112,177,076 112,177,076 129,258,955 129,258,955 UTILITIES 2,828,045 2,828,045 2,828,045 4,580,367 4,580,367 CARS, LOCOMOTIVES, YARDS 19,620,000 56,667,782 74,019,230 77,322,148 91,524,892 94,827,810 ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION 14,657,563 14,657,563 SUBTOTAL 30,962,078 277,045,062 312,449,558 449,244,806 553,370,643 679,445,914 20% CONTINGENCY 6,192,416 55,409,012 62,489,912 89,848,961 110,674,129 135,889,183 TOTAL COST 37,154,494 332,454,075 374,939,469 539,093,768 664,044,772 815,335,097

3.2.3 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Estimated annual operating costs are based on SEPTA's unit operating costs for FY2004, escalated to 2005 at an assumed inflation rate of 3.71%. The baseline express bus costs are based on SEPTA Route 125 with an adjustment factor of 20% applied to vehicle miles and hours to account for the very long route and anticipated deadhead movements. The costs for the express bus in the Baseline and the Wyomissing service in all of the build alternatives are based on weekday service only. The costs for the R6 operation include Saturday and Sunday service. Annual operating costs are summarized in Exhibit 9. All costs are in 2005 dollars. Exhibit 9 - Summary of Step 2 Annual Operating Costs

OPTION BASELINE 1 2 3 4 5 DIESEL DUAL-MODE ELECTRIC DUAL-MODE ELECTRIC WYOMISSING SERVICE EXPRESS BUS TO 30TH ST. VIA TUNNEL VIA TUNNEL VIA TUNNEL VIA TUNNEL ELECTRIC EXTENDED R6 SERVICE TO PLAZA-COURT WYOMISSING SERVICE 9,257,450 12,753,761 12,753,761 12,753,761 12,753,761 R6 14,830,645 14,830,645 14,830,645 14,830,645 24,363,117 24,363,117 EXPRESS BUS 4,779,033 TOTAL 19,609,678 24,088,095 27,584,406 27,584,406 37,116,878 37,116,878

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 16

3.2.4 RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE

Ridership forecasts were made using the DVRPC and Berks County travel demand forecasting models. The DVRPV model was modified and extended to include trips between Berks County and the DVRPC region as well as trips within the DVRPC regions. Because the Berks County model is only calibrated for bus service, with no history of rail service, it was only used to forecast trips within Berks County, which due to the nature of the proposed service accounts for a very small portion of the total ridership. The daily boardings for rail and express bus services in the SVM corridor are summarized in Exhibit 10. The forecasts are for the year 2025.

Exhibit 10 - Summary of Daily Boardings

OPTION BASELINE 1 2 3 4 5 DIESEL DUAL-MODE ELECTRIC DUAL-MODE ELECTRIC WYOMISSING SERVICE EXPRESS BUS TO 30TH ST. VIA TUNNEL VIA TUNNEL VIA TUNNEL VIA TUNNEL ELECTRIC EXTENDED R6 SERVICE TO PLAZA-COURT

WYOMISSING SERVICE 3,960 5,890 5,890 6,670 6,670

R6 VIA EAST FALLS 6,200 6,530 5,770 5,770 5,370 5,370

R6 VIA CYNWYD 1,280 1,290 1,300 1,300 2,370 2,370

EXPRESS BUS 1,190

TOTAL BOARDINGS 8,670 11,780 12,960 12,960 14,410 14,410

The fare revenue was estimated for cash only passengers, weekly and monthly pass users, seniors and disabled, and single and multi-ride passengers. For each option, the average weekday peak and off-peak station-to-station boardings were obtained from the travel demand analysis. Then the following weights were applied to determine the peak and off-peak station-to-station boardings by fare media.

Fare Media Weight Cash Only 11% Monthly Pass 38% Weekly Pass 22% Seniors & Disabled 4% Single & Multi-Ride 25% Total 100%

The peak and off-peak station-to-station fare matrices applied in the travel demand analysis were then used to estimate fare revenue. The fare revenue is computed by multiplying station-to- station boardings by the station-to-station average fare by fare media and time period. The peak and off-peak monthly pass fare tariff was used to estimate peak and off-peak fare revenue for the

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 17 monthly pass users. The peak and off-peak weekly pass fare tariff was used to peak and off-peak fare revenue for the weekly pass users. For all other fare media, a separate peak and off-peak fare tariff was used to estimate fare revenue with the following assumptions.

• During the peak and off-peak period, a $2.00 penalty was levied for 50 percent of the cash only passengers

• During the off-peak period, 75 percent of the senior and disabled riders were assumed to ride for free and the remaining 25 percent were assumed to pay a reduced fare of $1.00

3.2.5 TRANSIT USER BENFITS

In evaluating proposed transit projects that are seeking funds from the Federal New Starts program, the FTA takes several factors into consideration including existing and potential transit supportive land use, the proposed local or non-federal share of the project's capital cost, and the ability of the prospective grantee to finance the construction and operation of the project as well as the continued operation and maintenance of the existing transit system as reflected in the grantee's proposed financial plan. One of the most important evaluation measures used by the FTA is the cost effectiveness of the project as reflected in the project's projected cost per user benefit. Because the amount of funding being sought for transit projects nationwide significantly exceeds the amount that is available, the FTA has developed a uniform set of rules for calculating the cost of transit user benefits to enable it to fairly evaluate and rank the effectiveness of projects competing for limited funds.

Transit user benefits, expressed in hours, approximately represent the annual travel time savings the project will create in comparison to a baseline alternative, which is a low capital cost alternative that attempts to provide similar service coverage as the proposed build alternative. The FTA has developed a complex program called Summit that works in conjunction with the MPO demand forecast model to calculate the user benefits. The characteristics of the build alternative and corresponding baseline are key inputs. Because the benefit is defined for build alternatives and is based on the relationship between each build alternative and its corresponding baseline, there is no user benefit for the baseline.

The cost per user benefit is based on the difference between the combined annual capital and operating costs of the build and baseline alternatives. Capital costs are annualized by applying a discount or interest rate to the costs of the various project components based on the expected service life of the different components. The formula for calculating the cost per user benefits is as follows:

BUILD BASELINE ANNUALIZED ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST CAPITAL COST ++ ANNUAL ANNUAL COST PER USER OPERATING COST OPERATING COST BENEFIT ($/hour) ANNUAL USER BENEFIT HOURS

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 18 3.2.6 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The calculated cost per user benefit as well as capital and operating costs, daily boardings, and cost recovery are summarized in Exhibit 11. For purpose of comparison the values for both the No Build case, and MetroRail as defined in the previous SVM MIS/DEIS are included in Exhibit 11. The boardings shown for MetroRail are based on the current DVRPC model, which is forecasting a lower number than the previous DVRPC model used for the MIS/DEIS. No Build represents the condition that neither the Base Line nor a Build option is implemented.

Exhibit 11 - Summary of User Benefit Results

OPTIONNO BUILDBASELINE12345METRORAIL EXPRESS DIESEL DUAL-MODE ELECTRIC DUAL-MODE ELECTRIC WYOMISSING SERVICE BUS TO 30TH ST. VIA TUNNEL VIA TUNNEL VIA TUNNEL VIA TUNNEL ELECTRIC ELECTRIC EXTENDED R6 SERVICE TO PLAZA-COURT CAPITAL COSTS $0 $37 $333 $385 $539 $664 $815 $1,908 ($2005 millions) ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS $15 $20 $24 $28 $28 $37 $37 $54 ($2005 MILLIONS) AVERAGE WEEKDAY 7,770 8,670 11,780 12,960 12,960 14,410 14,410 26,800 BOARDINGS COST RECOVERY 40.5% 33.2% 40.5% 37.0% 37.0% 30.2% 30.2% 32.5% COST PER USER BENEFIT N/A N/A $149.02 $122.64 $163.64 $164.46 $193.19 $65.71

The cost per user benefit of the five build options ranges from $149.02 to $193.19, which is much higher than the $21.99 that the FTA currently uses as a threshold for recommending projects to proceed. Even the high performing, albeit more costly MetroRail plan comes in substantially above the FTA threshold. To put these numbers in perspective, Exhibit 12 lists the cost per user benefit of selected projects that were listed as in preliminary engineering in the FTA's Annual Report on New Starts for FFY 2006.

Exhibit 12 - Selected Rail Projects in Preliminary Engineering COST PER CITY PROJECT USER BENEFIT San Diego Mid-Coast Light Rail Extension $12.85 Denver West Corridor Light Rail $20.91 Boston Silver Line Phase III $15.84 Portland South Corridor I-205/Portland Mall Light Rail $14.88 Dallas Northwest/Southeast Light Rail MOS $21.59 Salt Lake City Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail $24.22 Northern Virginia Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project Extension $21.08 Source: FTA Annual Report on New Starts FFY 2006

In light of the poor correlation of the options that were investigated to the FTA's threshold figure, the Task Force in October of 2005 decided to consider segmenting the project into separate federal and non-federal components, with an initial federal component being one that would have the best chance of meeting the FTA's cost effectiveness criteria. The non-federal component would than have to be funded exclusively with local funds.

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 19

3.3 SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS

Given the higher density of development and concentration of markets in the segment of the corridor between Valley Forge and Philadelphia, it was decided that extension of the R6 services would have the best chance of meeting FTA's cost per user benefit threshold. For an initial stage options for extending the R6 Cynwyd service to Elm Street in Norristown and for extending both R6 services to Valley Forge were evaluated. Due to the high cost of further extension of the R6 service to Plaza-Court (King of Prussia), it was assumed that could constitute a subsequent federally funded project. Both the extension of the R6 Cynwyd service to Elm Street and both R6 services to Valley Forge would provide new opportunities to capture additional park and ride customers as well as provide more frequent service to stations west of Ivy Ridge. Either option would require restoration of the Cynwyd line to Ivy Ridge and a connection at Ivy Ridge, thus completing the necessary infrastructure to permit a locally-funded, diesel-powered Wyomissing service to operate east of Norristown via Cynwyd.

3.3.1 OPTIONS EVALUATED

The following describes the two build options and their corresponding baselines that were evaluated in the segmentation analysis. Schematic diagrams of these options are located in Appendix D.

Option 6

Option 6 would extend the R6 Cynwyd service to Elm St. in Norristown and increase the level of service to match that of the existing R6 via East Falls, i.e. 30 minute headways in the peak period and 60 minute headways at other times. This would result in a doubling of services at stations common to both R6 services west of Ivy Ridge. The primary cost capital cost elements would be for:

• Restoration of the line between Cynwyd and Ivy Ridge • Connection at Ivy Ridge to the R6 line via East Falls • New station at 52nd St. • Restoration of upper level station at Ivy Ridge • Installation of high platforms at all stations between 52nd and Elm Streets except Norristown • Purchase of additional electric MU cars.

Options 6 Baseline

The Baseline for Option 6 would be a new local bus service that would operate between 52nd St. and Lancaster Ave. in West Philadelphia and Elm St. in Norristown, serving all existing stations between those locations. The bus would operate via local streets and roads at 30-minute peak and 60-minute base headways. The only capital cost for this alternative would be for the purchase of additional buses.

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 20 Option 7

Option 7 would extend both R6 services (via Cynwyd and East Falls) to Valley Forge, discontinuing service to the Elm and Main Street stations in Norristown. A new station at Valley Forge would provide for parking as well as local bus connections. Both services would each operate with 30-minute headways during peak hours and 60-minute headways at other times resulting in average headways of 15 minutes peak/30 minutes base at stations serviced by both services west of Ivy Ridge. The primary capital costs elements would be for:

• Restoration of the line between Cynwyd and Ivy Ridge • Connection at Ivy Ridge to the R6 line via East Falls • New double track electrified alignment between Barbados Island (just west of Norristown) and Valley Forge including a new bridge/flyover structure of the west channel of the Schuylkill River and NS Harrisburg Line. • New stations at 52nd St. and Valley Forge • Restoration of the upper level station at Ivy Ridge • Installation of high platforms at all stations between 52nd St. and Valley Forge except Norristown • Purchase of additional electric MU cars.

Option 7 Baseline

The Baseline for Option 7 would be a new local bus service that would operate between 52nd St. and Lancaster Ave. in West Philadelphia and a new station at Valley Forge, serving all existing stations between those locations except Main and Elm Streets in Norristown. The bus would operate via local streets and roads at 30-minute peak and 60-minute base headways. The capital cost for this alternative would be for station at Valley Forge with provisions for parking and local bus connections and for the purchase of additional buses.

3.3.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The ridership and revenue forecasts and capital and operating cost estimates for the segmentation analysis alternatives were developed using the same procedures and criteria as for the Step 2 analysis described previously in this report. The results including the cost per user benefit and estimated cost recovery are summarized in Exhibit 13. As in the previous analysis the corresponding results for the MetroRail project are also included for comparison purposes. The No Build numbers are based on no project being implemented.

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 21

Exhibit 13 - Summary of Segmentation Analysis Results

OPTION NO BUILD 6 6 BASELINE 7 7 BASE LINE METRORAIL

R6 EAST PHILA. TO PHILA. TO PHILA. TO PHILA. TO PHILA. TO (VIA E. FALLS) ELM ST. ELM ST. ELM ST. VALLEY FORGE ELM ST. PHILA. TO R6 WEST PHILA. TO PHILA. TO PHILA. TO PHILA. TO WYOMISSING SERVICE PHILA. TO CYNWYD (VIA CYNWYD) CYNWYD ELM ST. VALLEY FORGE CYNWYD & PLAZA-COURT (KING OF PRUSSIA) 52ND ST. TO 52ND ST. TO BUS ELM ST. VALLEY FORGE CAPITAL COST ($2005 millions) $0 $125 $3 $206 $6 $1,908 OPERATING COSTS ($2005 millions) $15 $26 $17 $26 $17 $54

AVERAGE WEEKDAY BOARDINGS 7,770 8,600 8,290 9,660 9,680 26,800

COST RECOVERY 38.9% 26.0% 39.1% 29.1% 46.2% 32.5%

COST PER USER BENEFIT HOUR N/A $165.48 N/A $147.09 N/A $65.71

As in the Step Two analysis, the two build alternatives considered have a calculated cost per user benefit which is very high compared to the FTA New Starts threshold of $21.99 per hour in FFY 2006. This means that even a minimum segment project configured to serve the densest segment of the SVM corridor is highly unlikely to receive a recommended rating from the FTA and thus any federal participation in funding the project under the New Starts/Small Starts program.

The results of the segmentation analysis were completed in March of 2006.

4 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The extension and expansion of rail service in the Schuylkill Valley corridor is widely regarded as a necessary and desirable project to address many problems including increasing highway congestion, decentralization and sprawl, needed revitalization of older communities, loss of open space, declining air quality, and better access to employment for those dependent on transit. This was evident during the previous MIS/DEIS planning process in which the project was met with wide enthusiasm from the public as well as frustration with the delays in bringing the project to fruition. While there were debates over the nature of the proposed services and related technical issues, the primary challenge has been one of funding for the project. As the various analyses performed for the Task Force have demonstrated, alterations to the service levels and technical characteristics of the project have not, by themselves, pointed to a solution to the problem of funding. These problems are not limited to the total cost of the project, but also the amount of the local share that can be raised, and especially the ability to qualify for any level of federal participation. The problems are not limited to just the capital funding. While the work of the Task Force has been primarily focused on the capital costs and project phasing, securing the necessary funding to operate the service also remains a challenge. This is especially important since the total operating costs over the 30- to 50-year life of the assets will be substantially greater than the capital cost of the project.

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 22 There are several issues that can and should be considered in exploring ways to move the project forward:

4.1 RIDERSHIP FORECASTING

The ability of a project to attract riders is a primary measure of its success. Projects competing for federal funding are required to use the travel demand forecasting model of the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). In the case of the Schuylkill Valley Metro, two MPOs are involved: DVRPC and Berks County.

4.1.1 THE DVRPC MODEL

The DVRPC model has been used for many years and has been calibrated to the historical patterns of transit usage in the Philadelphia/ region, which historically has had a wide range of transit services available including bus, heavy rail, light rail, and commuter rail. The model however, has undergone significant changes in recent years, resulting in a decrease in the forecasts for transit ridership. Forecasts for the Schuylkill Valley Metro have been hit especially hard. The forecasts used for the SVM MIS/DEIS were based on the previous version of the DVRPC model, which incorporated demographics based on the 1990 census. The current model's demographics are based on the 2000 census. Compared to the previous model's forecasts, for the MetroRail service the current model is predicting a drop in daily boardings of between 22% and 47% depending on which modal definition (commuter rail or light rail) is used in the model. More broadly, the current model is predicting up to 40% fewer boardings on existing rail and bus services in the SVM corridor, and 16% fewer transit boardings for the region as a whole. These numbers do not represent a reduction from current boardings, but a reduction in the number of future boardings predicted by the previous version on the model.

It is believed that the drop in forecasted ridership is at least partially due to the expectation of less transit favorable characteristics in the demographic forecasts built into the model. The new model may reflect the regional sprawl and decentralization that occurred during the 1990s and continues to occur, and especially the lack of growth in jobs in Philadelphia, the region's premier transit market. There is anecdotal evidence that the model is under predicting ridership on the existing R6 service, where current ridership counts exceed 2025 projections. This may be due to the recent developments that have occurred in locations such as Conshohocken and Miquon, where a single project can have a significant influence on transit ridership. To the extent that the ridership model does not reflect current developments or recent trends, it could be hindering the ability of transit projects to capture the benefits of current developments and move forward on a timely basis. Clearly the model needs to be closely examined to see where adjustments may be necessary and beneficial.

4.1.2 THE BERKS COUNTY MODEL

The travel demand forecasting model for Berks County has no specific provisions for rail service. The model's calibration for transit ridership is based only on the county's experience with local bus service. It is generally recognized that rail service has a tendency to attract more riders than buses, and it is understood that the FTA is considering allowing higher ridership

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 23 attraction rates for rail service for studies in areas where rail currently does not exist. Therefore, is felt that the model is likely to be significantly under predicting SVM ridership in Berks County. As noted earlier in this report, this issue has been partially addressed for the Task Force analysis by extending DVRPC's model into Berks County for trips between the DVRPC region and Berks County. However, the Berks County model was still used for trips within Berks County.

4.2 PROJECT DEFINITION

At 62 miles, the Schuylkill Valley corridor is long for a typical new starts transit project. Furthermore the density of development and potential transit demand varies significantly from one end of the corridor to the other. This has made it difficult to craft a single project that satisfies the needs of the different segments of the corridor and that optimizes the potential for project success. Project analysis has made it clear that the Berks County end of the corridor cannot generate the same levels of ridership as the DVRPC end of the corridor, and thus helps to reduce the cost effectiveness of the project well below the levels of most transit projects serving shorter corridors with higher average density. The FTA's cost effectiveness criteria are geared to these more typical corridors, making it difficult if not impossible for the SVM to successfully compete with those projects for New Starts funding.

A possible strategy would be to split the SVM corridor into separate projects, treating the service to Berks County more as an intercity service rather than a transit service. Although securing the funding for that service would still be a challenge, the project could avoid the delay and likely failure in trying to compete for federal funding within the current policy framework.

As shown in the previous segmentation analysis, under that approach the proposed service in the DVRPC end of the corridor would still face difficult challenges in competing for FTA funding. However, allowing the two projects to each proceed on their own optimal path forward may offer the best chance for either or both to be successful.

4.3 FUNDING OPTIONS

It is clear from the analysis of the Task Force that the SVM faces an uphill battle in competing for federal New Starts funding, especially with respect to cost effectiveness (cost per transit user benefit). As the total funds available are limited and far less than the growing demand from projects throughout the United States, the FTA has "raised the bar" for projects to qualify, and the planning requirements have become more onerous and time consuming.

The later point is an important consideration. Traditionally transportation projects have led land use. Early in the 20th Century rail projects made their own market by being built out ahead of land development, which was subsequently attracted to the transit lines and stations. Later the same thing happened with highway development. In the Schuylkill Valley corridor the construction of the US 422 expressway has been enormously successful in attracting development (albeit sprawl) as well as users to the point where the highway is severely congested. To maximize its effectiveness, transit service should be implemented ahead of or at

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 24 least concurrent with land development, but the current processes for planning and implementing transit projects, especially if federal funding is being sought, are so time consuming as to make timely implementation impossible. Development generally does not wait for these processes, which can take many years even when successful, to be completed. If transit service is not already there or imminent, development will proceed in a manner which substantially compromises the potential synergy between land use and transit, if and when transit finally arrives.

Given the difficulty the SVM will likely face in securing federal New Starts funding and the missed opportunity represented by continuing delay, consideration could be given to restructuring it as a 100% locally funded project. As the River Line in New Jersey demonstrates, such projects can be brought to fruition in much shorter time. Raising the local funds will still be a challenge, but time is money, and with continuing delay the project will only become more expensive as well as less effective in achieving the goals identified in the MIS/DEIS.

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force 25 APPENDIX A

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS OF INITIAL SCREENING ALTERNATIVES

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force Appendix A APPENDIX B

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS OF STEP ONE OPTIONS

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force Appendix B APPENDIX C

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS OF STEP TWO OPTIONS

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force Appendix C APPENDIX D

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS OF SEGMENTATION OPTIONS

Schuylkill Valley Metro Task Force Appendix D