DOCSLIB.ORG

Malvern Transit Oriented Development Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Malvern Transit Oriented Development Study MALVERN TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STUDY Borough of Malvern in cooperation with Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Chester County Planning Commission Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority prepared by Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP in association with Vantage Point Development Advisors, LLC Thomas Comitta Associates, Inc. Timothy Haahs & Associates, Inc. DECEMBER 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The project team would like to thank the members of the Study Advisory Committee for their contributions to the study. Sandra Kelley, Manager, Malvern Borough Woody Van Sciver, President, Malvern Borough Council Andrew Svekla, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Justin A. Smiley, Chester County Planning Commission Byron S. Comati, Director of Strategic Planning and Analysis, SEPTA Malvern Transit Oriented Development Study CONTENTS Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Public involvement .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Train service and ridership ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Train service and schedule .............................................................................................................................. 5 Train station ridership ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Rider survey ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Parking ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Train station parking ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Municipal lot parking ..................................................................................................................................... 12 On‐street parking .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Parking conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Transportation assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 17 King Street ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Malvern station ............................................................................................................................................. 17 Pedestrian access .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Truck traffic ................................................................................................................................................... 20 Development traffic ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Transportation assessment conclusions ........................................................................................................ 22 Market study ............................................................................................................................................................... 23 Residential ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 Retail .............................................................................................................................................................. 23 Office ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 Market study conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 23 Alternative concepts .................................................................................................................................................... 25 TOD Concept Plans ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Funding .......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Page i Malvern Transit Oriented Development Study FIGURES 1 Study area ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Malvern station boardings and alightings by train time (2011) ............................................................................. 6 3 Mode of travel to Malvern station ......................................................................................................................... 7 4 Survey response on difficulty of finding parking in SEPTA lot ................................................................................ 8 5 Weekday occupancy of SEPTA parking lots at Malvern station ........................................................................... 11 6 Weekday occupancy of municipal parking lots .................................................................................................... 13 7 Station area on‐street weekday parking occupancy ............................................................................................ 15 8 Total peak hour traffic volume at the intersection of King Street and Warren Avenue ...................................... 22 9 Four‐level development alternative ..................................................................................................................... 27 10 Stepped‐height development alternative ............................................................................................................ 28 11 Concentrated development alternative ............................................................................................................... 29 TABLES 1 ZIP code of residence of SEPTA riders at Malvern station ...................................................................................... 7 2 Uses SEPTA riders would like in proximity to Malvern station ............................................................................... 9 3 On‐street parking regulations .............................................................................................................................. 14 4 Malvern station trip generation ........................................................................................................................... 17 5 Malvern station peak hour trip distribution ......................................................................................................... 18 6 Total peak hour trips generated by residential apartment development of different sizes ................................ 21 7 Borough of Malvern population and housing with alternative development scenarios ...................................... 30 APPENDICES Public workshop #2 survey tabulation King Street infill development guidelines Model TOD Overlay District provisions The market demand study is available in a separate document. Page ii Malvern Transit Oriented Development Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Borough of Malvern received a local match grant from the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) to conduct a study of transit oriented development (TOD) opportunities in the area of the Malvern train station. A TOD is defined as a compact, mixed‐use, pedestrian‐friendly development surrounding a transit station. The Borough was motivated to study TOD because of its potential benefits. A TOD could: . reinforce the Borough’s vitality . allow the Borough to proactively shape redevelopment, or limit redevelopment . provide Incremental tax income to support infrastructure improvements . take trucks off the streets, if a new access is built as a result . improve pedestrian access to the north side of the tracks . add parking, if a garage is built as a result . increase land and home values . better utilize the valuable transportation asset of the train station The study was conducted over a one‐year time frame from fall 2012 to fall 2013. The study received guidance from five meetings of a Study Advisory Committee (SAC) comprised of DVRPC, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Building Communities with Transit Oriented Development Table of Contents Purpose
    Commercial Landscapes Series Building Communities with Transit Oriented Development Table of Contents Purpose . 4 Introduction . 5 Where We Are Now . 6 Benefits . 6 Obstacles . 8 Overview of Chester County TOD . 10 The Vision For TOD in Chester County . 13 How Do We Get There . 14 Organization . 15 Regulatory Guidance . 19 Physical Improvements . 25 Conclusion . 27 Published April 2017 Chester County Board of Commissioners Michelle Kichline Kathi Cozzone Terence Farrell 2 Acknowledgements - Task Force and Partners Municipality Representatives Consultant Representatives Chester County Planning Zach Barner, Tredyffrin Township Tom Barton, Barton Partners Commisson Board Steven Brown, East Whiteland Township David Brant, Organizational Leadership/SRA Matthew Hammond, P.E., Chairman Derek Davis, West Goshen Township John Fessick, Wells Fargo Douglas Fasick, Vice-chairman Mimi Gleason, West Whiteland Township Mike Fili, Aqua America Danial DiMucci, RLA, ASLA Scott Greenly, East Whiteland Township John Lister, JL Architects Judy DiFilippo Michael Heaberg Jean Krack, Phoenixville Borough Agency Representatives Joe Scalise, Kennett Square Borough Kevin Kerr Pat Bokovitz, Chester County Department of Steve Sullins, Downingtown Borough Community Development Molly Morrison James Thomas, Parkesburg Borough Guy Ciarrocchi, Chester County Chamber of E. Martin Shane Mike Trio, City of Coatesville Business and Industry Joseph Tarantino Dottie Ives-Dewey, West Chester University Karen Versuk, Penn Township Chester County Planning MaryFrances McGarrity,
    [Show full text]
  • CVT Map Poster 24.Indd
    CHESTER VALLEY TRAIL MAP 76 100 401 29 Twp. Building Twp. E. Whiteland Battle ofthe Clouds Park Phoenixville Pike Exton Park Exton Park Whitford Rd. Exton Park Ecology Valley Albert C. Miller Battle Park Creek Memorial Park Swedesford Rd. of the Park P P P Meadowbrook Clouds line match 10 mi. Park 9 mi. EXTON Manor Park 11 m i . Mill Lane Station GREAT VALLEY Church Farm School Ln. BUS 12 mi. 30 Exton Mall 8 mi. Swedesford Rd. 13 mi. Mill Ln. Swedesford Rd. 202 Penn State Commerce Dr. Ship Inn Great Valley Cedar Hollow Park DOWNINGTOWN P 6 mi. Main Street FRAZER Conestoga Rd. 7 m i . Valley Creek Blvd. 5 mi. Twp. Building Building Twp. at Exton Whiteland W. Church Farm School LINCOLN HIGHWAY People’s Light 30 Ship Rd. Uptown Worthington 30 & Theatre Co. Whitford Station Exton Station AMTRAK/SEPTA RAIL Paoli Hospital 202 352 Cedar Hollow Rd. H 100 W. Central Ave. Boot Road Malvern Station Park MALVERN 30 Paoli Battlefield SCHUYLKILL RIVER TRAIL 422 23 Valley Forge Rd. Schuylkill River Valley Forge National Historical Park 202 MONTGOMERY COUNTY NORRISTOWN W. Valley Forge Rd. CHESTER COUNTY Yellow Springs Rd. PHILADELPHIA 202 76 23 KING OF PRUSSIA 252 UNT Bill SmithBlvd match line match Chesterbrook Blvd. Valley Forge Rd. CHESTERBROOK The Village at King of 422 Valley Forge Prussia 276 Wilson Mall Gateway 202 Farm Park 202 Shopping Center Swedesford Rd. 276 4 mi. 3 mi. 2 mi. 1mi. Westlakes 0 mi. P P Devon Park Dr. South Gulph Rd. Westlakes Old Eagle School Rd. Swedesford Plaza West Valley Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Planning for the Philadelphia–Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad Corridor
    VOLUME I Executive Summary and Main Report Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Philadelphia–Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad Corridor Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation March 2004 Disclaimer: This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation solely in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof, nor does it express any opinion whatsoever on the merit or desirability of the project(s) described herein. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Any trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Note: In an effort to better inform the public, this document contains references to a number of Internet web sites. Web site locations change rapidly and, while every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of these references, they may prove to be invalid in the future. Should an FRA document prove difficult to find, readers should access the FRA web site (www.fra.dot.gov) and search by the document’s title or subject. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FRA/RDV-04/05.I 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the March 2004 Philadelphia–Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad 6. Performing Organization Code Corridor⎯Volume I: Executive Summary and Main Report 7. Authors: 8. Performing Organization Report No. For the engineering contractor: Michael C. Holowaty, Project Manager For the sponsoring agency: Richard U. Cogswell and Neil E. Moyer 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft PA State Rail Plan
    7. References Photo: PennDOT Proposed Passenger Rail Projects This page left blank intentionally Appendix D: Proposed Passenger Rail Projects Project information was collected from a variety of sources. Identified schedule and costs are subject to change. The list of projects is not fiscally constrained. The key at the bottom of the table provides explanation for the corresponding codes associated with public benefit, funding source and project type. Table D-1: Current Pennsylvania Proposed Passenger Rail Projects, Sorted by Implementation Year (Project Open Year) and Project Sponsor Planned Project Project Service Implementation Cost Public Funding Project Number Sponsor Type Corridor Project (Project Open Year) ($M) Benefit Source Type 1 SEPTA Commuter Regional Rail Vehicle Overhaul Program (near- 2021-2024 $335.8 D A, B A, B term) 2 SEPTA Commuter Regional Rail Grade Crossing Enhancement Ongoing $12.0 B B E Program 3 SEPTA Commuter Regional Rail Critical Bridge Program Ongoing $69.2 D, G B A 4 SEPTA Commuter Regional Rail Interlocking Improvement Program Ongoing $120.5 D, G B E 5 SEPTA Commuter Regional Rail Track & ROW Rail Service Ongoing $19.3 D, G B A Improvements 6 SEPTA Commuter Regional Rail Safety & Security Shop, Yard and Ongoing $39.5 B B D Office Hardening 7 SEPTA Commuter Regional Rail Regional Rail Stations – Ongoing $11.3 B B C RRD Station Roof Program 8 SEPTA Commuter Regional Rail Positive Train Control 2020 $167.0 F, B A, B F 9 Amtrak, Intercity and Keystone, 562 Upgrade PARK to THORN 2020–2024 $20.0 C F D PennDOT,
    [Show full text]
  • SEPTA Status Updates
    DVRPC Approved Projects for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Pennsylvania Transit Projects - SEPTA Status Updates MPMS County Project Title Project Description Amount * Let Date Award Date Award $ Comments 60655 Bucks Intermodal Facility SEPTA intends to provide advanced intermodal station improvements at the Croydon Station, R7 Trenton Line. The $8,500,000 N/A 3/1/2009 $8,018,862 - Improvements (B) (R7 improvements include new high level platforms, expanded parking, and realignment of adjacent street to improve traffic flow. Croydon Regional Rail Station Rehabilitation) 60540 Chester Parking Expansion SEPTA intends to construct a new (90) space parking lot at the Elwyn Station, R3 Media/Elwyn Line, on a parcel of land $1,690,322 7/28/2009 8/26/2009 $856,299 - Program (R3 Elwyn currently owned by the Elwyn Institute. There is currently insufficient parking at this station. Parking) 84643 Chester Malvern Station and SEPTA intends to construct a new pedestrian underpass, new energy efficient lighting, intertrack fencing, and related exterior $12,475,988 N/A N/A $0 - Pedestrian Tunnel improvements at the Malvern Station, R5 Paoli/Thorndale Line, including expansion and improvements to the existing parking Improvements lot. All work will be completed in accordance with ADA requirements. 60557 Delaware System Improvements SEPTA intends to install fiber optic cabling along the Routes 101 &102, MSHL. This will permit installation of Audio Visual $4,890,190 N/A 7/1/2009 $2,818,264 - (Media-Sharon Hill Public Address (AVPA) devices at all passenger stations and improve power substation control. The design work is by Parsons.
    [Show full text]
  • April 2010 Bulletin.Pub
    TheNEW YORK DIVISION BULLETIN - APRIL, 2010 Bulletin New York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association Vol. 53, No. 4 April, 2010 The Bulletin NYC TRANSIT’S HUGE BUDGET DEFICIT Published by the New We checked the Internet and we found that On weekends, service would be re- York Division, Electric NYC Transit is having difficulty balancing the duced on other lines because of con- Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box budget. struction work. At the present time, 3001, New York, New In December, 2009, MTA-wide revenue pro- trains often operate on a 12-minute York 10008-3001. jections from fares, tolls, government sub- headway. The new schedules would sidy, and dedicated taxes worsened appre- adjust scheduled headways to match ciably. This was caused by a reduction of those required by construction work. For general inquiries, contact us at nydiv@ $143 million in 2009 state subsidy, lower Service would be reduced from an 8– erausa.org or by phone revenue from dedicated state taxes, and a to a 10-minute headway on D, F, G, at (212) 986-4482 (voice cumulative 11.3 percent three-year wage in- J, M, N, Q, and R on Saturdays mail available). The crease to certain union-represented employ- and , , , , , , , and Division’s website is A D E F G N Q R www.erausa.org/ ees. Therefore, the budget deficit was ex- on Sundays. Headways on 1 would nydiv.html. pected to be $383 million in 2009-10 and be reduced from 6 to 8 minutes on Sat- $297 million in 2011. (This number has since urdays and Sundays.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2022 Capital Budget and FY 2022-2033 Capital Program Proposal
    FISCAL YEAR 2022 CAPITAL BUDGET and FISCAL YEARS 2022-2033 CAPITAL PROGRAM PROPOSAL Including Reduced Funding Capital Program Scenario FY 2022 CAPITAL BUDGET AND FY 2022-2033 CAPITAL PROGRAM Proposal April 26, 2021 FY 2022 CAPITAL BUDGET AND FY 2022 - 2033 CAPITAL PROGRAM Table of Contents Executive Summary…............................................................................................................. 1 Introduction to SEPTA............................................................................................................ 4 SEPTA Forward - 5-Year Strategic Business Plan…............................................................. 8 Impacts of SEPTA's Capital Program……………………………................................................... 9 SEPTA’s Projects of Significance ……………………………………………....................................... 12 Sources of Capital Funding..................................................................................................... 15 FY 2022 Capital Budget and FY 2022-2033 Capital Program: Current Funding Level Program……..……………………………………............................ 20 Neshaminy Substation Reduced Funding Level Program……...…………………………….................................. 22 Capital Program and Project Descriptions 28 Bridge Program.............................................................................................................. 29 Communications, Signal Systems and Technology..................................................... 34 Financial Obligations.....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NEC Capital Investment Plan
    Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2020-2024 March 2019 (amended July 2020) Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The Commission also includes non- voting representatives from freight railroads, states with connecting corridors and several commuter operators in the Region. Contents Letter from the Co-Chair 1 Executive Summary 2 1. Introduction 5 2. FY20-24 Capital Investment Plan 7 Project Information Appendix 19 A. Capital Renewal of Basic Infrastructure 20 Figure A-1. Amtrak FY20-24 Baseline Capital Charge Program 22 Figure A-2. Metro-North Railroad FY20-24 Baseline Capital Charge Program 23 Figure A-3. Connecticut DOT FY20-24 Baseline Capital Charge Program 24 Figure A-4. MBTA FY20-24 Baseline Capital Charge Program 26 B. Special Projects 28 Figure B-1. Summary of special project funding requirements 29 Figure B-2. Special project listing by coordinating agency 34 Figure B-3. Amended special projects by coordinating agency1 145 1 On December 9, 2019, the Commission amended select project pages in the FY20-24 Capital Investment Plan to ensure alignment with applications to be submitted for the Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair Grant Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Paoli/Thorndale Line Riders
    ATTENTION PAOLI/THORNDALE LINE RIDERS Adjustment To Friday Late Night Trains Inbound Train #1500 Outbound Train #1595 Friday, July 12, 2019 Due to Amtrak construction, Late Night trains #1500 (Inbound) & #1595 will be running on a modified schedule. There will be opposite side boarding for train #1500 from Thorndale to Paoli stations. Please refer to the timetables and information below. INBOUND TRAIN #1500 (TOWARDS CENTER CITY) OUTBOUND TRAIN #1595 (TOWARDS THORNDALE) • Train #1500 will operate 10 minutes later from Paoli • Train #1595 will operate 10 minutes later from Jefferson Station to Jefferson Station Station to Malvern Station • Train #1500 will board from the OUTBOUND side at Thorndale, Downingtown, Whitford, Exton, Malvern & Paoli Stations FRIDAY JULY 12, 2019 Fare Services Train Number 1595 FRI FRIDAY JULY 12, 2019 Zone Stations ONLY Fare Services Train Number 1500 C Temple University — FRI Zone Stations ONLY C Jefferson Station 1:31 4 Thorndale 11:54 C Suburban Station 1:36 4 Downingtown 11:58 C 30th Street Station 1:40 4 Whitford 12:03 2 Overbrook 1:49 4 Exton 12:05 2 Merion 1:51 4 Malvern 12:11 2 Narberth 1:53 4 Paoli (Rt 204, 205, 206) 12:15 2 Wynnewood 1:54 3 Daylesford 12:27 2 Ardmore 1:56 3 Berwyn 12:29 2 Haverford 1:58 3 Devon 12:31 3 Bryn Mawr 2:00 3 Strafford 12:33 3 Rosemont 2:02 3 Wayne 12:35 3 Villanova 2:04 3 St. Davids 12:37 3 Radnor (STN*) 2:06 3 Radnor (STN*) 12:39 3 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft PA State Rail Plan
    7. References Photo: AECOM Appendix F: RSIP Analysis – Passenger Short-Range and Long-Range Projects This page left blank intentionally Appendix F: RSIP Analysis – Passenger Short-Range and Long-Range Projects Passenger Rail Capital Program Needs by Category (Short-Range) Short-Range Passenger Rail Capital Program Needs by Category (2021–2024) in Millions of Year of Expenditure (YOE) Dollars Table F-1: Short-Range Passenger Rail Capital Needs (2021–2024) in Millions of YOE Dollars – Equipment Proposed Total Cost Project Corridor Funding Source 2021 2022 2023 2024 (YOE) Gwynedd Valley Station Parking Regional Rail State/Local $2.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.6 Railroad Substations - Lansdale, Hatboro and Regional Rail State/Local $0.0 $36.0 $0.0 $0.0 $36.0 12th Street/Portal Switching Station Regional Rail Multi-Level Car Acquisition Regional Rail Federal/State/Local $0.0 $184.9 $0.0 $0.0 $184.9 Vehicle Overhaul Program Regional Rail Federal/State/Local $262.8 $270.7 $278.8 $287.1 $1,099.4 Total $265.4 $491.5 $278.8 $287.1 $1,322.8 Table F-2: Short-Range Passenger Rail Capital Project Funding Needs (2021–2024) in Millions of YOE Dollars – Facilities Proposed Total Cost Project Corridor Funding Source 2021 2022 2023 2024 (YOE) Chestnut Hill East ADA Improvements Regional Rail State/Local $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $12.6 $12.6 Fern Rock Transportation Center Safety Regional Rail State/Local $0.0 $21.7 $0.0 $0.0 $21.7 Improvements Frazier Rail Shop and Yard Upgrade Regional Rail State/Local $0.0 $0.0 $151.9 $0.0 $151.9 Harrisburg Line Station Improvements: Keystone
    [Show full text]
  • Railroads of West Chester: 1831 to the Present James Jones West Chester University, [email protected]
    West Chester University Digital Commons @ West Chester University History Faculty Publications History 2006 Railroads of West Chester: 1831 to the present James Jones West Chester University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/hist_facpub Part of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons Recommended Citation Jones, J. (2006). Railroads of West Chester: 1831 to the present. , 1-147. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/ hist_facpub/9 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the History at Digital Commons @ West Chester University. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ West Chester University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Edition Commons Digital Railroads of West Chester 1831 to the present A history of the construction and consequences of the greatest invention of its age as viewed from a small town in southeastern Pennsylvania. Edition Written and designed by Jim Jones, Ph.D., Professor of History, West Chester University. Printed by Taggart Printing, 323 S. Matlack Street, West Chester, PA 19382. Front cover: 1960 American Locomotive Company DR3-18U of the West Chester Railroad. Photo by Jim Jones. Commons Copyright 2006, 2013 by Jim Jones Digital All rights reserved. Edition Dedicated toalternativesautomobiles, and toeveryonewhousesthem. Commons Digital TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Abbreviations iv Foreword vi Introduction 1 Part I: A local
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail Stations
    #1–05 January 2005 Passenger Rail Stations Technical Memorandum An Element of Connecting Landscapes—the Transportation Plan for Chester County PREPARED BY THE CHESTER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION C CPC The Chester County Planning Commission is developing a long range transportation plan as was recommended in LANDSCAPES, the County’s comprehensive policy plan. Connecting Landscapes will review all modes of travel and make recommendations for strategies and improvements. As the transportation plan develops, between 20 and 25 technical memorandums will be published and made available for pub- lic review. Different modes of travel will be addressed with background information, analyses, discussion of issues, and recommendations. When all technical memorandums are completed a final report will synthesize the recommendations into a plan element. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carol Aichele Andrew E. Dinniman Donald A. Mancini Table of Contents Summary . .1 Background . .2 Methodology . .3 Conclusions . .3 Recommendations . .4 Station Profiles and Recommendations . .7 Parkesburg Station . .8 Coatesville Station . .10 Thorndale Station . .12 Downingtown Station . .14 Whitford Station . .16 Exton Station . .18 Malvern Station . .20 Paoli Station . .22 Daylesford Station . .24 Berwyn Station . .26 Devon Station . .28 Strafford Station . .30 Chester County Stations without Regular Passenger Service . .33 West Chester Station . .33 West Chester University Station . .33 Westtown Station . .33 Columbia Station . .33 Maps Map 1 | Passenger Rail Stations
    [Show full text]