Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission October 2000 'HODZDUH9DOOH\5HJLRQDO3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ %RXUVH%XLOGLQJWK)ORRU 6,QGHSHQGHQFH0DOO(DVW 3KLODGHOSKLD3$ ZZZGYUSFRUJ 'HODZDUHÃ9DOOH\Ã5HJLRQDOÃ3ODQQLQJÃ&RPPLVVLRQ 2FWREHUÃ Created in 1965, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is an interstate, intercounty and intercity agency that provides continuing, comprehensive and coordinated planning to shape a vision for the future growth of the Delaware Valley region. The region includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties, as well as the City of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and Mercer counties in New Jersey. DVRPC provides technical assistance and services; conducts high priority studies that respond to the requests and demands of member state and local governments; fosters cooperation among various constituents to forge a consensus on diverse regional issues; determines and meets the needs of the private sector; and practices public outreach efforts to promote two-way communication and public awareness of regional issues and the Commission. Our logo is adapted from the official DVRPC seal, and is designed as a stylized image of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole, while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC’s state and local member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for its findings and conclusions, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. cover design: The cover contains photographs of the Jenkintown Station parking lot and the Glenside Station building and inbound platform superimposed on a copy of a conceptual improvement plan for the Glenside business district prepared for the Commercial District Enhancement Plan for the Township of Cheltenham, by Carter van Dyke Associates. wp2I2X2xole2ttion2gommutershed rrington rminster TQ rorshm G@PHP 34PTQ ISP TII IQP 34 34 7 34 Ú 34PQP rtoro DEFUT 34QHW pper22hulin 22 pperÚ Ú worelndÚ Ú Ú 5 DEFPUT Ú TQ erdsley Ú 6 eington SQP 6 Ú 7Ú 34 xorth2rills xole 7 PQP UQ qlenside Ú76 7 7 34 6 5 7 7 7 7 7 pringfield 5 7 urvey2esponses 6tenkintown tenkintown Ú 7 Ú ill2not2hnge2sttions@I gheltenhm 5 ould2hnge2to2qlensideG ould2hnge2to2tenkintown Ú 7 6 6 urveyed2ttions hiveei2evvi ilkins2rk rimry2tudy2ere iqsyxev2vexxsxq2gywwssyx hildelphi UQ TII x 34 IHIP lotted2points2re24nerest2intersetion42to2the2 DEFUT trip2origin2s2given2y2the2survey2respondentsF wiles Ú 7 urvey2hteX2wy2WD2PHHH Chart 1: Noble Station Passenger Profile Survey Date: May 9, 2000 Mode of Arrival Bus Drop Off 6.0% 6.0% Drove:SEPTA Lot 38.8% Walk 35.8% Drove: On Street Drove: Other 4.5% 9.0% Suggestions and Comments Number of Comments Improve access across tracks 7 Better amenities at Noble Station needed 5 Increase parking at nearby stations 4 Repair York Rd. stairs 3 Improve overall SEPTA service 3 Free or reduced price parking needed 2 Overcrowding / additional train cars needed 1 Positive remarks 1 Final Destination Station Other 30th Street University City Suburban Market East 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of Responses Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission wp2P2X2ilkins2rk2ttion2gommutershed rrington rminster TQ G@PHP rorshm 34PTQ 34ISP 34TII 34IQP 34PQP rtoro DEFRUT 34QHW pper22hulin 22 pper worelnd DEFPUT TQ erdsley 6 eington SQP xorth2rills 6 34 Úxole UQ qlenside 6 34PQP 6 tenkintown pringfield tenkintown 6 Ú urvey2esponses Ú 7 Ú ill2not2hnge2sttions gheltenhm ÚÚ 7 I Ú Ú Ú 5 ould2hnge2to2qlensideG@ Ú ÚÚÚ 7 Ú Ú ÚÚ ÚÚÚ 7 ould2hnge2to2tenkintown ilkins 5 ÚÚÚ 7Ú Ú Ú Ú rk Ú ÚÚ 7Ú 7 6 urveyed2ttions ÚÚ 65 Ú Ú ÚÚ hiveei2evvi Ú Ú rimry2tudy2ere hildelphi Ú ÚÚÚ Ú UQ iqsyxev2vexxsxq2gywwssyx 34TII ÚÚ IHIPx Ú Ú lotted2points2re24nerest2intersetion42to2the2 DEFUT Ú trip2origin2s2given2y2the2survey2respondentsF wiles urvey2hteX2wy2WD2PHHH Chart 2: Elkins Park Station Passenger Profile Survey Date: May 9, 2000 Mode of Arrival Carpool 0.6% Bus 0.6% Bicycle 1.7% Drop Off Drove: Other 6.3% 8.0% Walk Drove: On Street 43.2% 14.8% Drove:SEPTA Lot 25.0% Suggestions and Comments Number of Comments More Elkins Park parking needed 16 Better Elkins Park service needed 15 Improve station amenities 9 Overcrowding / additional train cars needed 8 Pleased with station personnel and/or amenities 7 Commuter parking concerns (on-street parking, monthly permit issues, etc.) 7 Poor on-time performance 6 Complaints concerning current construction 5 Bicycle issues 3 Service coordination needed 2 Change Jenkintown and Glenside to zone 2 2 Final Destination Station Other Temple 30th Street University City Market East Suburban 0 102030405060708090 Number of Responses Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission wp2Q2X2xorth2rills2ttion2gommutershed rrington 5 7 rminster PHP rorshm G@ TQ 34PTQ 34ISP 34TII 34IQP 34PQP rtoro RUT DEF pper Ú hulin QHW ÚÚ 5 34 Ú 2 pper Ú Ú Ú Ú Ú worelnd Ú DEFPUT ÚÚ5 Ú TQ 5erdsley 5 7 eington Ú 5 SQP xorth2rills Ú5 6 34 Ú 76Ú xole 7 5 7 5 UQ 5 7 qlenside 6 34PQP ÚÚ 6 pringfield Ú tenkintown urvey2esponses tenkintown6 5 gheltenhm Ú ill2not2hnge2sttionsG@I 5 ould2hnge2to2qlenside 7 ould2hnge2to2tenkintown 6 6 urveyed2ttions hiveei2evvi hildelphi ilkins2rk UQ rimry2tudy2ere iqsyxev2vexxsxq2gywwssyx 34TII x IHIPUT lotted2points2re24nerest2intersetion42to2the2 DEF trip2origin2s2given2y2the2survey2respondentsF wiles urvey2hteX2wy2IHD2PHHH Chart 3: North Hills Station Passenger Profile Survey Date: May 10, 2000 Mode of Arrival Drop Off Bicycle 7.2% 1.4% Walk 30.4% Drove:SEPTA Lot 59.4% Drove: On Street 1.4% Suggestions and Comments Number of Comments Prefer Glenside parking expansion 5 Improve access across tracks 4 Positive remarks / satisfied customers 4 Security concerns and issues 3 Poor R5 on-time performance 3 Prefer Jenkintown parking expansion 3 Prefer Ft. Washington parking expansion 3 Implement automated passenger service information system 2 Improve railcar maintenance 2 Restructure SEPTA service 2 Overcrowding / additional train cars needed 1 Final Destination Station Other 30th Street Market Suburban 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Number of Responses Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission wp2R2X2erdsley2ttion2gommutershed rrington rminster rorshm G@PHP TQ 34PTQ 34ISP 34TII 34IQP 34PQP rtoro DEFRUT 5 Ú 34QHW pper22hulin 22 pper Ú worelnd DEFPUT ÚÚ TQ Ú erdsley Ú5 ÚÚ Ú 5 7 6 eington SQP 6 ÚÚ5 34 xorth2rills 5 7 xole 5 Ú UQ qlenside 6 34PQP pringfield 6 6tenkintown urvey2esponses tenkintown Ú ill2not2hnge2sttionsG@I gheltenhm 5 ould2hnge2to2qlenside 7 ould2hnge2to2tenkintown 6 ilkins2rk 6 urveyed2ttions hiveei2evvi UQ rimry2tudy2ere iqsyxev2vexxsxq2gywwssyx hildelphi 34TII x IHIPUT lotted2points2re24nerest2intersetion42to2the2 DEF trip2origin2s2given2y2the2survey2respondentsF wiles urvey2hteX2wy2IHD2PHHH Chart 4: Ardsley Station Passenger Profile Survey Date: May 10, 2000 Mode of Arrival Bicycle 3.2% Drop Off 25.8% Drove: On Street 3.2% Drove:SEPTA Lot 67.7% Suggestions and Comments Number of Comments General parking issues (cost, increased lot size at other stations, geometry, etc.) 9 Improve station amenities 5 Bicycle issues 2 Overcrowding / more frequent service 2 Better vandalism prevention 2 Positive remarks concerning station renovations 2 Need for better access across tracks at Glenside 2 Reduce fares 1 Better maintenance of Suburban Station 1 Final Destination Station Other 30th Street Market East Suburban 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Number of Responses Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission wp2S2X2qlenside2ttion2gommutershed 6 7 rrington 6 7 ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ rminster ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ TQ rorshm G@PHP 34PTQ 34ISP 34TII 34IQP ÚÊ 7 ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ 6 34PQP rtoro UT DEF ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ 6 ÚÊ 34QHW ÚÊÚÊ pper22hulin ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ 22 pper ÚÊ 6 ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ 6ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊworelndÚÊ ÚÊ6ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ6ÚÊ6ÚÊ PUT ÚÊ ÚÊ 6 DEF ÚÊ6ÚÊ 6 ÚÊ 6 TQ ÚÊÚÊ6ÚÊ ÚÊ 6 ÚÊerdsley ÚÊ ÚÊ eington ÚÊ 6 ÚÊ ÚÊ6 ÚÊ SQP ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊÚÊ6ÚÊ 34 xorth2rills 6 ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ6 xole ÚÊ6 7 ÚÊ6 ÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ 7 6 ÚÊ 6ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ6 ÚÊÚÊ PQP 6 UQ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ 6 34 ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ6ÚÊÚ5ÊÚÊ6 Ú6Ê ÚÊÚÊ6 ÚÊÚÊ6 ÚÊ 7 7ÚÊÚÊ6ÚÊÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ6 7 urvey2esponses pringfield ÚÊÚÊÚÊ 6 76ÚÊ ÚÊ tenkintown ÚÊÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊÚÊ 6 tenkintown 6 6 ÚÊÚÊ qlenside Ú6Ê ÚÊ ÚÊ 7 refer2ixpnsion2t2tenkintown ÚÊ I 6gheltenhm 6 refer2ixpnsion2t2iither2ttionG@ 6ÚÊ ÚÊ ill2not2hnge2sttions ÚÊ ÚÊ ÚÊ 6 6 urveyed2ttions hiveei2evvi 6 ÚÊ ilkins2rk rimry2tudy2ere iqsyxev2vexxsxq2gywwssyx hildelphi UQ IHIPx lotted2points2re24nerest2intersetion42to2the2 DEFUT trip2origin2s2given2y2the2survey2respondentsF wiles urvey2hteX2wy2IID2PHHH Chart 5: Glenside Station Passenger Profile Survey Date: May 11, 2000 Mode of Arrival Drop Off Bicycle 9.2% 0.3% Drove:SEPTA Lot Walk 43.3% 29.1% Drove: Other 3.4% Drove: On Street 14.7% Suggestions and Comments Number of Comments More Glenside parking needed 46 Repair / improve access across tracks 16 Increase parking lot size at various nearby stations 15 Better maintenance of parking lot / station 14 Overcrowding / additional train cars needed 11 Increase SEPTA service at various stations 11 Increase security 7 Poor on-time performance 7 Satisfied customers 6 Improve methods of ticket sales 5 Provide accurate, timely train info to customers 4 Improve permit enforcement 3 Get tenant for