DOCSLIB.ORG

Frequently Asked Questions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Frequently Asked Questions FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. What is the R6 Norristown Line Service Extension Study ? The purpose of the R6 Norristown Line Service Extension Study was to determine the viability of restoring lower cost passenger rail service between communities along the US Route 422 corridor in Montgomery, Chester and Berks counties and Center City Philadelphia. The study included a simplified service plan from the previous studies done by SEPTA and the Governor’s Task Force, and looked to determine if some method of tolling the US 422 Expressway could help to finance the rail capital costs. The objectives of the project are as follows: • Provide another transportation option in the congested US 422 corridor . Commuter rail service would provide another transportation option for residents commuting to Philadelphia and help reduce traffic in this rapidly developing region in Pennsylvania. • Contribute to downtown revitalization efforts in the corridor . Towns along the US 422 corridor wish to use the reinstitution of commuter rail service to act as a catalyst for development and redevelopment. • Explore funding mechanisms to improve local transportation infrastructure . Innovative funding sources and financing techniques should be identified that could pay for rail service and perhaps other needed transportation projects in the US 422 corridor. 2. What are the limits of the R6 study area? The study includes the Norfolk Southern rail corridor located between the Norristown Transportation Center in Norristown, Montgomery County and Wyomissing in Berks County. Spanning Montgomery, Chester and Berks counties, the corridor is approximately 44 miles long. 3. Which agencies / organizations are involved with the study? The Montgomery County Planning Commission (MCPC) initiated the R6 Norristown Line Service Extension Study in cooperation with the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). MCPC and DVRPC were assisted by a Study Technical Advisory Committee for the project comprised of representatives from the Berks County Planning Commission, Chester County Planning Commission, Office of US Senator Arlen Specter, Office of Congressman Jim Gerlach, Norfolk Southern Railroad, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA), Greater Valley Forge Transportation Management Association and Select Greater Philadelphia/CEO Council for Growth. 4. How were the study alternatives determined? Financial and economic criteria were employed to determine the cost of building and operating each alternative. Alternatives were then assessed on the basis of impacts to transportation and mobility in the region. With extensive input from the Montgomery County Planning Commission Montgomery County Planning Commission Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission and the Study Technical Advisory Committee, seven rail alternatives were identified and analyzed: • Alternative 1 − Extension of existing R6 electrified service from Norristown to Valley Forge at a site in Port Kennedy. • Alternative 2 − Diesel service west of Norristown utilizing stations at Valley Forge, Phoenixville, Royersford, Pottstown, Monocacy, Reading and Wyomissing with a transfer at the Norristown Transportation Center. This would be combined with an extension of R6 Norristown line electrified service (Alternative 1, extension of electrified service to Valley Forge). Service between Norristown and Center City Philadelphia would be via existing SEPTA R6 service. • Alternative 3 − Diesel service west of Norristown utilizing stations at Valley Forge, Phoenixville, Royersford, Pottstown, Monocacy, Reading and Wyomissing with a transfer at the Norristown Transportation Center. This would not include an extension of R6 Norristown line electrified service. Service between Norristown and Center City Philadelphia would be via existing SEPTA R6 service. • Alternative 4 − Diesel service between Wyomissing and Conshohocken with service terminating in Conshohocken and a required transfer at Conshohocken. Service between Conshohocken and Center City would be via existing R6 service. • Alternative 5 − Potential dual power locomotive service from stations west of Norristown to Center City Philadelphia using the existing R6 Norristown Line. Dual power service would run as diesel service into Norristown and then would run via overhead catenary into Philadelphia 30th Street Station. • Alternative 6 − Electrified service between Wyomissing and Philadelphia 30th Street Station. Service would run express east of Norristown except for station stops at Conshohocken and Temple University. • Alternative 7 − Optimized service on the existing R6 Norristown Line. Alternative 7 would include changes to existing R6 service or the addition of at least one train to provide an express overlay on existing all-stop service. Upon completion of this evaluation, the Study Technical Advisory Committee determined that only three of the alternatives listed above should be advanced for financial planning and analysis purposes: • Alternative 1 − Extension of existing R6 electrified service from Norristown to Valley Forge at a site in Port Kennedy; • Alternative 3 − Diesel service west of Norristown with a transfer to the R6 at Norristown; and • Alternative 6 − Electrified service from Wyomissing to Philadelphia. Although this study carried forward the three alternatives that appear to be most feasible, a future Alternatives Analysis will analyze all options plus non-rail modes in far greater detail. The Alternatives Analysis process is focused on identifying the best methods for addressing transportation issues in the corridor. 5. How would the R6 Extension be funded? There are several funding and financing options available to implement both highway improvements along the US 422 Expressway and the R6 Norristown Line service extension project. The R6 study recommended a detailed feasibility study of tolling the US 422 Expressway that would generate the funding needed to make critical improvements to the US 422 Expressway but also support passenger rail service in the corridor. Montgomery County Planning Commission Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 6. How would the US 422 Expressway be tolled? Three tolling options were considered: Option 1: Express Toll Lanes in the existing median of the US 422 Expressway . Preliminary analysis shows this option is physically and economically unsuitable for the selected portion of US 422. The estimated cost of the Express Lanes west of the Schuylkill River at Valley Forge was $174.5 million, consuming most of the potential debt capacity. In addition, constructing lanes east of the Schuylkill River is infeasible without acquiring additional right-of-way, due to the narrow median. Thus, this option was dismissed from further consideration in the study. Option 2: US 422 Schuylkill River Bridge at Valley Forge Toll . Proceeds from 40-year toll revenue bonds secured by a single toll at the Schuylkill River crossing could provide some money needed to fully fund the capital costs of the River Crossing Project and contribute to the capital costs of the rail project. This option assumed an average toll of $2.00 on all westbound vehicles utilizing the improved River Crossing Project at Valley Forge. Option 3: General Tolling . General Tolling offers greater potential for revenue generation and geographical equity. Regardless of where motorists enter or exit the US 422 Expressway, tolls would be charged on a per mile basis similar to the Pennsylvania Turnpike. This applies a uniform pricing strategy for all motorists traveling the US 422 Expressway. For an average vehicle traveling the full length of the 25-mile expressway corridor – in either direction – the toll analysis assumed a $2 charge, or eight cents per mile. 7. How much will it cost to use the US 422 Expressway? Under the General Tolling scenario, the study’s tolling structure assumed a total cost of $2 to travel the 25-mile corridor. The limited analysis indicated that a general tolling to raise the needed funds might be financially feasible. The next steps include a more detailed feasibility study to verify the financial capacity of tolling to both improve the US 422 Expressway and pay for capital costs associated with the R6 Extension to Wyomissing. 8. Will the tolling of the US 422 Expressway require reconfiguration of the existing interchanges or the construction of toll booths? Unlike the existing toll roads, US 422 Expressway will not be run as a “closed system” with physical tollbooths at each interchange. The options in the study assumed the use of Open Road Tolling (ORT), which allows the collection of tolls at highway speeds, without toll plazas, using electronic (EZ-Pass) transponders supplemented by license plate photography. ORT eliminates the additional right-of-way requirements, increased congestion, and environmental impacts associated with toll plazas. 9. How were the R6 Extension rail stations identified? In its goal to simplify service and start-up costs, the study limited the number of stations to be analyzed. If the tolling alternative proves to be a successful way to finance the R6 Extension, then the rail operating plan will determine the list of stations that can initially be built. As part of the study station planning, meetings were held with local officials in Upper Merion Township, Borough of Phoenixville, Borough of Royersford, Borough of Pottstown, Amity Township, City of Reading and Borough
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 216/Wednesday, November 8
    Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 65437 receive on this proposal on the TTB United States Geological Survey foot elevation point, section 13, T5N/ Web site. We may omit voluminous 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. They R4W, Mt. George Quadrangle; then attachments or material that we are titled: (12) Proceed west for 2.1 miles along consider unsuitable for posting. In all (1) Mt. George Quadrangle, California, Imola Avenue, crossing onto the Napa cases, the full comment will be available 1951, Photoinspected 1973; and map, to its intersection with the Napa in the TTB Information Resource Center. (2) Napa Quadrangle, California-Napa River at the Maxwell Bridge, T5N/R4W, To access the online copy of this notice Co., 1951, Photorevised 1980. Napa Quadrangle; and the submitted comments, visit (c) Boundary. The Tulocay (13) Proceed northerly (upstream) for http://www.ttb.gov/regulations_laws/ viticultural area is located in Napa 3.2 miles along the Napa River to its all_rulemaking.shtml. Select the ‘‘View County, California. The boundary of the intersection with Milliken Creek, T6N/ Comments’’ link under this notice Tulocay viticultural area is as described R4W, Napa Quadrangle; then number to view the posted comments. below: (14) Continue northerly (upstream) for 0.75 mile along Milliken Creek to its Regulatory Flexibility Act (1) The beginning point is on the Mt. George map at the 1,877-foot peak of Mt intersection with Monticello Road, T6N/ We certify that this proposed George, section 29, T6N/R3W; R4W, Napa Quadrangle; then regulation, if adopted, would not have (2) From the beginning point, proceed (15) Proceed northeasterly for 2.4 a significant economic impact on a 0.4 mile straight southeast to the miles along Monticello Road, crossing substantial number of small entities.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Improvement Projects in the US 422 River Crossing Complex
    c. 2500 ft 1) Betzwood Bridge Replacement (SR 3051 Sec. 78B) • New bridge on existing footprint with one traffic lane in each direction DRAFT Work with Lower Providence and a 12-foot wide trail for bicycle and pedestrian travel to the Vally Township to reconfigure proposed Forge National Historical Park 23 P access to US 422 westbound with P Outer Line Drive o o entrance from PA 363 instead of r • Intersection and roadway modifications for improved boat ramp and r t t the Adams Ave. area 422 Park access, local traffic and multi-use trail access Ongoing efforts to optimize new Countyounty LineLine DriveDrive K K “gateway” design opportunities e e Valley Forge n 2) PA 23/US 422 Interchange Modernization n Create pedestrian for the Valley Forge National n n National Historical e Historical Park and the planned e underpass under d (SR 0422 Sec. 2NG) d y Trooper Rd. to y Park • Interchange modified for improved operations and capacity on US American Revolution Center. PA 363 Interchange design accommodate future recfined for less impacts in R 422 and local roadways American R extension of Upper o o adajcent areas (exit ramp from US • Relocation of N. Gulph Rd. to provide “gateway” opportunities (shown aa Merion trail under Revolution dd 422 East now passes under US 422 in green) for future park use and for the planned American Revolution Center entrance ramp to US 422 east) Center at Valley Forge (ARC) Center at • Modification of existing westbound US 422 Schuylkill River bridge Direct access to and from Valley Forge Valley Forge parapet and median to improve evening traffic flows US 422 West will be available Crossing (future) • Relocation of PA 23 traffic to US 422 eastbound to the First Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Guide to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Records
    Preliminary Guide to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Records NMAH.AC.1086 Alison Oswald January 2010 Archives Center, National Museum of American History P.O. Box 37012 Suite 1100, MRC 601 Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 [email protected] http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives Table of Contents Collection Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 Administrative Information .............................................................................................. 1 Biographical / Historical.................................................................................................... 2 Scope and Contents........................................................................................................ 3 Arrangement..................................................................................................................... 3 Names and Subjects ...................................................................................................... 6 Container Listing ............................................................................................................. 7 Series 1: Historical Background, 1827-1987............................................................ 7 Series 2: Bridge Histories, 1867-1966..................................................................... 8 Series 3: President's Office, 1826-1880................................................................... 9 Series 4: Correspondence, 1826-1859.................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • This Website Provides an Overview of the Commonwealth's 2013
    This website provides an overview of the Commonwealth’s 2013 Transportation Program. Please access the links below to find information related to federal and state requirements, program goals, funding levels, and our planning partners. To be considered for adoption by the State Transportation Commission on August 9, 2012 Version: 8/9/2012 Effective: 10/1/2012 Modernization process. with various agencies to save money and time. The agency’s Evaluating what we do and how we do it, and improving relationship with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is technologies and processes where change makes sense, is IdeaLink becoming more diversified with information sharing in areas essential to the long term financial viability of transportation. It is IdeaLink, an online suggestion box, was a modernization item ranging from dump truck maintenance to facilities design and also fundamental to customer service and maximizing the value of developed to make it easier for employees to submit their ideas construction. PennDOT is working with the turnpike in helping to our current investment. In many cases PennDOT’s methods or directly to the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary and his design its Somerset maintenance building based upon earlier technologies were implemented decades ago, under a different set staff evaluate every submission to determine what positive PennDOT designs. The project involves a maintenance garage and of circumstances. Through rigorous evaluation, a number of changes can be implemented. Of about 650 ideas submitted since administrative office, truck and equipment shelter, salt storage modernization opportunities internal to PennDOT were identified, August of last year, approximately 140 have been implemented facility, a state police area, fencing, and lighting and paving.
    [Show full text]
  • Allegheny Housing Redevelopment Authority
    Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS for Broker Services Request for Owner Controlled Insurance Program RFP # 04-115-2905 DATE OF ISSUANCE April 20, 2004 -1- Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission 2004 Broker Services Request Owner-Controlled Insurance Program Table of Contents General Information_______________________________________________________2 Introduction______________________________________________________________4 Special Conditions_________________________________________________________5 Description of the Projects__________________________________________________6 Project T326.20RR001 7 Project T245.72SS001 7 Project T247.38TT001 7 Time Line________________________________________________________________8 Broker Selection Criteria ___________________________________________________9 Contents of Proposal______________________________________________________10 Broker Services __________________________________________________________12 Broker Compensation_____________________________________________________17 General Information Project Owner: Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) Mailing Address: P.O. Box 67676 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7676 Web Site: www.paturnpike.com Phone Number: 717.986.9616 -2- Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission 2004 Broker Services Request Owner-Controlled Insurance Program Facsimile Number: 717.986.8785 Contacts: Dennis Genevie Director of Safety & Risk Management [email protected] Gary W. Pennick Occupational Safety & Insurance Supervisor [email protected] -3- Pennsylvania Turnpike
    [Show full text]
  • DATE: 09-30-2016 LOCATION RESTRICTION DATE CONTRACTOR COST PHILADELPHIA Aramingo Ave
    PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DISTRICT 6-0 TRAFFIC RESTRICTION BULLETIN (NOTE: SCHEDULES ARE SUBJECT TO WEATHER CONDITIONS) (All restrictions 24 hours/day, 7 days/week unless otherwise noted) PENNDOT ROADWAY MAINTENANCE HOTLINE 1-800-FIX- ROAD Log on to www.511pa.com or call 511 from any phone to check conditions on major highways. DATE: 09-30-2016 LOCATION RESTRICTION DATE CONTRACTOR COST PHILADELPHIA Aramingo Ave. N & S Bridge Beam Installation: CLOSED & DETOURED 9/30/16 James J. Anderson $211.7 million between Delaware Ave. & I-95. 10 PM - 5 AM. DETOUR POSTED. Betsy Ross Bridge ramp to I-95 Deck Repair: LEFT & CENTER LANE CLOSURE on 10/1/16 Maintenance South ramp. 6 AM - 2 PM. *I-95 North ramp to Cottman Ave. Paving: RAMP CLOSED & DETOURED. 8 PM - 5 10/1/16-10/8/16 Walsh Construction $212.3 million (PA 73) AM. DETOUR POSTED. Company Passyunk Ave. Bridge Rehabilitation: WESTBOUND RIGHT LANE 10/1/16-10/8/16 Buckley & Company, $33.5 million CLOSED on Hon. Robert C. Donatucci Memorial Inc. Bridge over Schuylkill River. 9 AM - 3 PM. Walnut St. Bridge Joint, Deck & Sidewalk Repairs: LANE 10/2/16-10/5/16 Neshaminy $2.5 million CLOSURES between N. 23rd St. & S. 32nd St. 8 PM - Constructors, Inc. 5 AM. Whitaker Ave. Bridge Joint, Deck & Sidewalk Repairs: LANE 10/2/16-10/6/16 Neshaminy $2.5 million CLOSURES between E. Loudon St. & E. Ruscomb St. Constructors, Inc. 8 PM - 5 AM. US 1 N & S (Roosevelt Extension) Bridge Cleaning: MOVING OPERATION between 10/2/16-10/7/16 DeAngelo Brothers, $1.2 million Henry Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Long Report Highway
    FY 2003-2006 Transportation Improvement Program Pennsylvania Subregion Final Version Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission FY 2003-2006 Transportation Improvement Program Pennsylvania Subregion Highway Projects Final Version Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission DVRPC FY 2003-2006 TIP for PA Final Version Pennsylvania - Highway Program Bucks MPMS# 12782 PA 263, York Road Center Turn Lane TIP# 5759 Cty Line Rd/ Henry Ave & Roberts/Bristol Roadway and Intersection Improvement AQ Code 2015M Warminster Twp. Provide center left turn lane areas and/or median barriers on Old York Road between County Line Road & Henry Ave. and also between Roberts Road & Bristol Road TIP Program Years ($ 000) Later FYs Phase Fund FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FD LOCAL 200 ROW LOCAL 150 CON TBD 2,700 Fiscal Year Total 200 150 0 0 2,700 Total FY 03-06 Cost 350 MPMS# 12871 PA 413, New Rodgers Road TIP# 5020 US 13 (Bristol Pike) - North of Ford Rd. Widen to 4 lanes AQ Code 2005M Bristol Twp., Bristol Boro. This project involves reconstructing the PA 413/US 13 intersection with jughandles, widening to 5 lanes between US 13 and the I-95 Spur, and widening to 4 lanes between the I-95 Spur and Ford Road. TIP Program Years ($ 000) Later FYs Phase Fund FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 CON HWY 2,240 CON DEMO 1,915 CON H-STATE 1,039 CON HWY 2,720 CON H-STATE 680 Fiscal Year Total 5,194 3,400 0 0 0 Total FY 03-06 Cost 8,594 MPMS# 12890 Newtown Bypass Extension TIP# Roadway Reconstruction AQ Code Trenton Urban Area STU Funds($588,000) used for project closeout.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Area Transportation Study
    READING AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY MINUTES OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 7, 2013 IN THE BERKS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE FOURTEENTH FLOOR OF THE BERKS COUNTY SERVICES CENTER TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Jay McGee PennDOT 5-0, Chair* Raymond Green, PennDOT Central Office Alan D. Piper, Berks County Planning Commission Michael Golembiewski, for Glenn Knoblauch, Berks County Planning Commission Ryan Furgerson, for Dennis Louwerse, BARTA Charles Jones, City of Reading Deb Hoag, City of Reading *Tie-breaking Vote only TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOT ATTENDING Terry Sroka, Reading Regional Airport OTHERS Jonathan Crum, FHWA Larry Shifflet, PennDOT Central Office George Tomaszewski, PennDOT 5-0 Regina Zdradzinski, Berks County Planning Commission Craig Lutz, for Senator Dave Argall Bill Royer, for Rep. Ryan MacKenzie Roy Baldwin, McCormick, Taylor Liam Migdail-Smith, Reading Eagle Carol Obando-Derstine, U.S Senator Bob Casey T.J. Huckleberry, Senator Schwank Matt Boyer, Commuter Services of PA 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman McGee called the Technical Committee to order at 1:30 p.m. 2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2013 Chairman McGee asked if there were any questions or comments to the January 3, 2013 Technical Committee Meeting minutes. 1 MOTION: Mr. Jones made a motion to accept the Technical Committee Meeting minutes of January 3, 2013. Mr. Green seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 3. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. Lutz stated that the Poplar Neck Bridge over the Schuylkill River in Cumru Township was downgraded from a 35 ton weight limit to a 32 tons. He asked if there was any way to put this bridge on the program.
    [Show full text]
  • I-76 / I-476 Interchange Area Traffic and Conceptual Engineering Study
    I-76 / I-476 Interchange Area Traffic and Conceptual Engineering Study Technical Report April 2009 The Delaware Valley Regional Our logo is adapted from the official DVRPC seal, and is designed as a stylized image of Planning Commission is dedicated to the Delaware Valley. The outer ring uniting the region’s elected officials, symbolizes the region as a whole, while the planning professionals and the public diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. with the common vision of making a The two adjoining crescents represent the great region even greater. Shaping Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. the way we live, work and play, DVRPC builds consensus on DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding improving transportation, promoting sources including federal grants from the smart growth, protecting the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) environment, and enhancing the and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), economy. We serve a diverse region the Pennsylvania and New Jersey of nine counties: Bucks, Chester, departments of transportation, as well Delaware, Montgomery and as by DVRPC’s state and local member Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; and governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for its findings and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and conclusions, which may not represent the Mercer in New Jersey. DVRPC is the official views or policies of the funding official metropolitan planning agencies. organization for the Greater DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of Philadelphia Region — leading the the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related way to a better future. statutes and regulations in all programs and activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
    Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission A Compliance Audit June 2008 Jack Wagner, Auditor General Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General Bureau of Special Performance Audits June 13, 2008 The Honorable Edward G. Rendell Governor Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Dear Governor Rendell: Enclosed is our report that presents the results of our audit of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Act 122 of 1988 requires the Department of the Auditor General to conduct, on a quadrennial basis, a financial audit and a compliance audit (i.e., a type of performance audit) of the affairs and activities of the Commission. Our compliance/performance audit covers the period of January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2005, unless otherwise indicated, and was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards as issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. With regard to the financial audit, we have followed the same practice that my predecessors have followed since Act 122 went into effect, meaning that we did not conduct our own four-year financial audit and instead reviewed audits and supporting documentation of the independent firm who audits the Commission’s financial statements annually. Accordingly, we have reviewed those financial audits and the applicable working papers for the four fiscal years ending May 31, 2002, through May 31, 2005. My legal staff has advised me that this practice is sufficient to satisfy our mandate in Act 122. The compliance/performance audit report accompanying this letter is the first audit of the Turnpike Commission released during my administration. Focusing on the Commission’s performance with regard to safety, we found that safety is indeed a goal throughout the organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Passenger Rail Service to Berks County, PA
    Restoring Passenger Rail Service to Berks County, PA PREPARED FOR: Berks Alliance & Greater Reading Chamber Alliance PREPARED BY: Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. July 2020 Restoring Passenger Rail Service to Berks County, PA Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS II CHAPTER 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE 1-4 1.3 PROJECT SCOPE 1-4 1.4 PROJECT METHODOLOGY 1-5 1.5 FREIGHT RAILROAD PRINCIPLES 1-7 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT 1-9 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY 2-1 2.1 HISTORY OF RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES IN READING 2-1 2.2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS CORRIDOR STUDIES 2-1 CHAPTER 3 SERVICE AND OPERATING PLAN 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1 3.2 TRAIN TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS 3-3 3.3 PASSENGER TRAIN TIMETABLE DEVELOPMENT 3-7 3.4 RAIL CAPACITY NEEDS 3-17 3.5 SUMMARY 3-45 CHAPTER 4 CAPITAL PLAN 4-1 4.1 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS 4-1 4.2 EQUIPMENT SCHEDULING AND CAPITAL COST 4-1 4.3 NORFOLK SOUTHERN COMPENSATION 4-1 4.4 EQUIPMENT AND TOTAL CAPITAL COST 4-1 CHAPTER 5 DEMOGRAPHICS, SOCIOECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION DATABASES 5-1 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1 5.2 ZONE SYSTEM 5-1 5.3 SOCIOECONOMIC DATABASE DEVELOPMENT 5-2 5.4 BASE YEAR TRANSPORTATION DATABASE DEVELOPMENT 5-4 CHAPTER 6 TRAVEL DEMAND FORECAST 6-1 6.1 FUTURE TRAVEL MARKET STRATEGIES 6-1 6.2 TRAVEL DEMAND FORECAST RESULTS 6-4 6.3 MARKET SHARES 6-10 6.4 BENCHMARKS 6-11 CHAPTER 7 OPERATING COSTS 7-1 TEMS, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Driving Directions
    Driving Directions Location : The John James Audubon Center at Mill Grove (JJAC) is located at 1201 Pawlings Road in Audubon, PA . JJAC lies approximately 6 miles west of Norristown, 5 miles north of Valley Forge exit #326 (old exit #24) on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (King of Prussia), 18 miles east of Pottstown, 24 miles west of Philadelphia, and 12 miles south of the Lansdale area. The entrance to JJAC is situated at the junction of Audubon and Pawlings Roads in the village of Audubon, Pennsylvania. From Philadelphia, the Schuylkill Expressway (Interstate 76): At King of Prussia, take exit for Route 422 Bypass west (Pottstown). Follow directions below for Route 422 Bypass Going West From the Pennsylvania Turnpike: Take Route 202 south to Route 422 Bypass west (Pottstown). Follow directions below for Route 422 Bypass Going West. From Route 202 North and South: Take exit for Route 422 Bypass west. Follow directions below for Route 422 Bypass Going West. From Route 422 Bypass Going West: Follow Route 422 west to the third exit (you will cross over the Schuylkill River Bridge before approaching the exit), which is marked Route 363 north – Audubon Trooper. While on the exit ramp, bear right but move into the left-hand traffic lane. Turn left at the first traffic light, which will place you on Audubon Road. Follow Audubon Road. At the second traffic light, you will cross Pawlings Road. After crossing Pawlings Road you are in JJAC’s entrance driveway. From Route 30: Go north on Route 202 to exit for Route 422 Bypass west (Pottstown).
    [Show full text]