Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee PENNSYLVANIA STATEWIDE PASSENGER RAIL NEEDS ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2001 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................................4 1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................5 1.1 Study Background........................................................................................................................................5 1.2 Study Purpose...............................................................................................................................................5 1.3 Corridors Identified .....................................................................................................................................6 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................7 3.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON CANDIDATE CORRIDORS .................................................14 3.1 Existing Intercity Rail Service...................................................................................................................14 3.1.1 Keystone Corridor ................................................................................................................................14 3.1.2 Capitol Limited ....................................................................................................................................15 3.1.3 Pennsylvanian—Three Rivers..............................................................................................................15 3.1.4 Lake Shore Limited..............................................................................................................................15 3.1.5 Northeast Corridor................................................................................................................................16 3.2 Intercity Bus Service ..................................................................................................................................16 3.2.1 Greyhound Bus Service............................................................................................................................16 3.2.2 Trailways..............................................................................................................................................17 3.3 Other State Research and additional passenger rail studies ..................................................................19 3.3.1 Other States ..........................................................................................................................................19 3.3.2 Additional Passenger Rail Studies .......................................................................................................25 3.4 Statewide and regional Interests...............................................................................................................27 3.4.1 Regional Meeting Results ....................................................................................................................28 3.4.2 Planning Partners Input ............................................................................................................................33 3.4.3 Rail FREIGHT Interests.......................................................................................................................36 4.0 CANDIDATE CORRIDOR ANALYSIS ......................................................................................37 4.1 Corridor Screening and Evaluation .........................................................................................................37 4.1.1 Infrastructure and Right-of-Way Availability......................................................................................38 4.1.2 Major Destinations and Trip Generators ..............................................................................................38 4.1.3 Market Size ..........................................................................................................................................38 4.1.4 Transportation Patterns and Conditions ...............................................................................................39 4.1.5 System Continuity and Connectivity....................................................................................................39 4.2 Prioritize corridors.....................................................................................................................................39 PAGE 2 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee 5.0 FUTURE POLICY FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................42 5.1 National Context.........................................................................................................................................43 6.0 CORRIDOR PROFILES ............................................................................................................52 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................53 Appendix A – Corridors Evaluated and Descriptions Appendix B – Amtrak’s Pennsylvania Rail Service Schedules Appendix C – Cities/Centers Served by Greyhound Appendix D – Intercity Service Provided by the Trailways System in the Northeastern U.S. Appendix E – Letter Mailed to Regional Meeting Participants Appendix F – Regional Meeting PowerPoint Presentation Appendix G – Regional Meeting Focus Group Questions Appendix H – Regional Meeting Summaries Appendix I – Corridor Ranking Rationale PAGE 3 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Gannett Fleming, Inc. wishes to thank the members of the State Transportation Advisory Committee Study Task Force for their guidance, insights, and ongoing participation as we conducted this important study. We appreciate their constructive dialogue, incisive review of materials, and participation in the many meetings. Task Force Members: Chairman: Brad Cober, Commissioner, Somerset County Members: H. Michael Liptak, TAC Chairman Andrew Galloway, Senior Director, Transportation Planning and Policy, Amtrak Larry King, Deputy Secretary for Planning, PENNDOT Joseph Mangarella, TAC Member Georgia Masters-Earp, Community and Economic Development, TAC Member Richard Peltz, Deputy Secretary for Local and Area Transportation, PENNDOT Robert Roush, Pennsylvania Department of Education, TAC Member Bill Schafer, Director of Corporate Affairs, Norfolk Southern Corporation David E. Sims, P.E., TAC Member Fred Wertz, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, TAC Member PENNDOT Staff: James Arey, Center for Program Development & Management James Brantner, Center for Program Development & Management Joseph Daversa, Director – Bureau of Public Transportation James Grier, Division Chief, Bureau of Public Transportation Robert Janecko, Center for Program Development & Management Ran Marshall, Bureau of Rail Freight Robert Shellenberger, Bureau of Public Transportation William Trethaway, Center for Program Development & Management Anita Everhard, State Transportation Advisory Committee Consultant Team: Keith Chase, Project Director Toby Fauver, AICP, Project Manager Patrick Anater Michelle Hoshauer PAGE 4 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND Pennsylvania, like most states, faces transportation challenges and opportunities related to economic development, dispersed land use, growth impacts, and significant increases in vehicular travel. These trends result in a more congested transportation system and land development practices that sometimes strain the existing transportation system. PENNDOT, its regional planning partners, and federal modal agencies realize that the level of investment required to build our way out of congestion is unachievable. Recognizing this challenge, and the need for a balanced transportation system, PENNDOT issued PennPlan in January 2000 as Pennsylvania’s Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan. PennPlan sets forth a bold new direction over a 25-year time horizon. It responds to PENNDOT’s customers, who stressed the need for greater personal mobility, more transportation options, and an environmentally sustainable transportation system. PennPlan identified the need for this TAC passenger rail study with the objective of completing it by 2002. Several of the PennPlan statewide corridors are currently served by, or have some potential to be served by intercity passenger rail. 1.2 STUDY PURPOSE The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) chose to broadly assess the need for statewide intercity passenger rail service in key transportation corridors pursuant to PennPlan Objective #20. PennPlan contains ten broad goals that relate to various key themes, public input, and 29 specific objectives. One objective (#20) is to “Develop a statewide, passenger-rail needs assessment.” That objective relates to several of the ten PennPlan goals, including: 1. Retain jobs and expand economic opportunities 2. Make transportation decisions that support land use planning objectives 3. Maintain, upgrade, and improve the transportation system. These goals in turn relate