FINAL REPORT Track A Extension Feasibility Study Phase II submitted to the Cecil County Office of Planning, Zoning & Parks submitted by Parsons Brinckerhoff Baltimore, Maryland in association with Gallop Corporation Remline Corporation Rummel, Klepper, & Kahl, LLP Sabra, Wang & Associates, Inc. October 2005 Track A Extension Feasibility Study—Phase II Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ IV 2 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 STUDY CORRIDOR ............................................................................................................... 1 2.2 ALTERNATIVES BEING CONSIDERED ..................................................................................... 4 3 PUBLIC OUTREACH PART I.................................................................................................. 4 3.1 MEETING MINUTES PROJECT COORDINATION MEETING #1 .................................................... 7 3.2 MEETING MINUTES PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING #1 ............... 8 3.3 MEETING MINUTES TAEFS2 MEETING—RAILROAD COORDINATION .................................... 10 3.4 MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC MEETING #1............................................................................. 12 4 RIDERSHIP DEMAND ........................................................................................................... 14 4.1 LAND USE & DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS ................................................................................. 14 4.2 PERRYVILLE PASSENGER SURVEY...................................................................................... 14 4.3 TRANSIT WARRANTS ......................................................................................................... 15 4.3.1 Transit Warrant Review ........................................................................................... 17 4.3.2 Transit Warrant Conclusion ..................................................................................... 19 4.4 PIVOT POINT ANALYSIS...................................................................................................... 19 4.4.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 19 4.4.1.1 Existing Commuter Rail Trips.............................................................................................19 4.4.1.2 Changes in Demographics.................................................................................................21 4.4.1.3 Pivot Point Procedure ........................................................................................................21 4.4.2 Pivot Point Conclusion............................................................................................. 22 4.5 H-1 MODEL FORECAST...................................................................................................... 22 4.5.1 H-1 Model Methodology........................................................................................... 22 4.5.2 Data Collection......................................................................................................... 23 4.5.3 Calibration................................................................................................................ 23 4.5.3.1 Employment Density ..........................................................................................................23 4.5.3.2 Distance .............................................................................................................................24 4.5.3.3 Calibration Results .............................................................................................................24 4.5.4 Future-Year Estimates............................................................................................. 25 4.5.4.1 Extend MARC Penn Line with Existing Service Levels (Scenario 1)..................................26 4.5.4.2 Extend MARC Penn Line with Augmented Service Levels (Scenario 2) ............................27 4.5.5 H-1 Model Conclusions............................................................................................ 28 4.6 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 29 5 OPERATIONS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 30 5.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................................. 30 5.2 OPERATING CONSTRAINTS................................................................................................. 31 5.2.1 Track Access Considerations .................................................................................. 31 5.2.2 Service Planning Considerations............................................................................. 32 5.2.3 Interlockings............................................................................................................. 32 5.2.4 Labor Considerations............................................................................................... 32 5.2.5 Passenger Station Considerations .......................................................................... 33 5.2.6 Layover and Servicing Considerations .................................................................... 33 5.2.7 Indemnification Considerations................................................................................ 34 5.3 PASSENGER TRAIN ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... 34 5.3.1 Scenario 1: Stop Amtrak Trains at Elkton................................................................ 34 5.3.2 Scenario 2: Extend Existing MARC Perryville Trains to Elkton ............................... 34 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Track A Extension Feasibility Study (Phase II) Final Report 5.3.3 Scenario 2A: Extend Existing MARC Perryville Trains to Wilmington..................... 35 5.3.4 Scenario 3: Double Existing MARC Perryville Trains to Elkton............................... 37 5.4 FREIGHT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES................................................................................. 37 5.4.1 Existing Freight Operations and Trends .................................................................. 37 5.4.1.1 Proposed Physical Improvements......................................................................................38 5.4.1.2 Redundant Freight Access.................................................................................................39 5.5 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 39 6 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 41 6.1 PASSENGER FACILITIES.............................................................................................. 41 6.1.1 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance............................................................ 41 6.1.2 Perryville Station (MP 59.4) ..................................................................................... 41 6.1.3 North East Station (MP 51.5)................................................................................... 42 6.1.4 Elkton Station (MP 44.8).......................................................................................... 42 6.2 TRACK ............................................................................................................................ 42 6.3 SIGNALS/TRAIN CONTROL .......................................................................................... 43 6.4 OVERHEAD CONTACT SYSTEM .................................................................................. 43 6.4.1 OCS Structures Three Tracks or Wider................................................................... 43 6.4.2 OCS Structures Two Tracks Wide........................................................................... 43 6.5 STRUCTURES................................................................................................................ 43 6.6 LAYOVER FACILITY ....................................................................................................... 43 6.7 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE............................................................................................ 44 6.8 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 45 7 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS............................................................................................. 50 7.1 SOCIOECONOMIC............................................................................................................... 50 7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.................................................................................................. 50 7.3 PARK AND RECREATION AREAS.......................................................................................... 51 7.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 51 7.5 NATURAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................... 53 7.5.1 Topography, Geology and Soils .............................................................................