FEASIBILITY STUDY AND CONCEPT DEFINITION
FOR A
FOR A
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT:
REGIONAL RAIL SERVICE BETWEEN
PHOENIXVILLE AND PHILADELPHIA
REGIONAL RAIL SERVICE BETWEEN
PHOENIXVILLE AND PHILADELPHIA
Prepared By:
Thomas E. Frawley Consulting, LLC (SBE)
August 13, 2018
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND CONCEPT DEFINITION
FOR A
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT:
REGIONAL RAIL SERVICE BETWEEN
PHOENIXVILLE AND PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
1. INTRODUCTION
This Feasibility Study and Concept definition for a Demonstration Project (the Study, Study Report, or Report) has been prepared to provide information to, and support the efforts of, the Mayor’s Task Force in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, to explore the feasibility of a commuter rail demonstration project that would operate between Phoenixville and Philadelphia. The development of this Study has been sponsored by the DeMutis Group, a real estate development business based in Phoenixville with a long history of restoration of historic buildings, primarily in the Phoenixville area and in Cape May, New Jersey.
2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This Study has been performed to evaluate the conceptual feasibility of a two-year commuter rail service demonstration project between Philadelphia and Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, and to define such a demonstration project in sufficient detail to facilitate substantive discussions with the host railroads – Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) – and to support the preparation of grant applications for funds to support its implementation. The scope of the Study was specified to be preliminary in nature, with additional more detailed analyses and design engineering of necessary improvements anticipated to be necessary before the demonstration could be implemented.
The study area through which the proposed demonstration would provide new commuter rail service beyond the existing SEPTA service to Norristown includes the Borough of Phoenixville and Schuylkill Township in Chester County, and the unincorporated Village of Valley Forge, Valley Forge National Historic Park, King of Prussia in Upper Merion Township, and the Municipality of Norristown, in Montgomery County, as illustrated in Exhibit 1. The study area overlaps with what is often referred to as the U.S. Route 422 Corridor.
EXHIBIT 1 – STUDY AREA
The Study scope addresses essential aspects of the proposed demonstration service, including existing conditions of the railroad infrastructure, operational feasibility of the demonstration, potential ridership, proposed infrastructure improvements, proposed rolling stock, and estimated capital and operating costs.
3. BACKGROUND
Rail passenger service to Phoenixville ended in 1981 with the termination of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) diesel powered trains between Reading Terminal in Philadelphia, Reading, and Pottsville, Pennsylvania. Since 1981, there have been significant changes in Phoenixville, primarily centered around the closing of the Phoenix Steel Corporation plant (originally the Phoenix Iron Works) in the 1990s and the subsequent redevelopment of the industrial site and simultaneous revitalization of the downtown area of the Borough. In this timeframe, while higher density development and re-development was taking place in the Borough, lower density residential development was taking place in neighboring Schuylkill Township and the surrounding area. These developments are reflected in the growth in population in the US Route 422 Corridor generally, and in the Borough of Phoenixville and neighboring Schuylkill Township, specifically, as indicated in Exhibit 2, below.
EXHIBIT 2 – STUDY AREA POPULATION CHANGE 1980 - 2016
Borough of Phoenixville
|
Schuylkill Township
|
Combined Totals
| |
1980 Population1
|
14,165
|
5,993
|
20,158
|
2016 Population
|
16,8852
|
8,5163
|
25,401
|
Change
|
2,720
|
2,523
|
5,243
|
Percent Change
|
19.2%
|
42.1%
|
26.0%
|
1) U.S. Census 1980
2) U.S. Census 2010, adjusted to 2016 based on municipal data
3) U.S. Census 2010
Anecdotal reports suggest that a significant portion of new residents of Phoenixville in recent years commute to work in Philadelphia, and that peak hour traffic conditions in the Route 422 Corridor are congested and becoming more so. Continued urban and brownfields development in Phoenixville are expected to further increase the population for several years into the future. Based on these circumstances, and as mentioned in Section 1 of this Study report, the Office of the Mayor in Phoenixville has organized a Task Force, that with help from business leaders and interested citizens in Phoenixville is exploring commuter rail service as a means unaffected by roadway traffic conditions of providing a reliable transportation mode for work related travel between Phoenixville and Philadelphia.
The goal of the current project is to re-establish passenger rail service between Phoenixville and Philadelphia, via Norristown, using existing rail infrastructure, on a demonstration basis. Successful implementation of the demonstration service is envisioned to potentially make feasible the long-term restoration and expansion of passenger rail service between Phoenixville and Philadelphia.
3.1 Previous Studies
Over the years since rail service between Philadelphia and Phoenixville was discontinued in 1981, interest has remained strong in improving transportation in the U.S. 422 Corridor. This interest is illustrated by multiple studies in the corridor, related to rail and roadway modes, including the following, from some of which selected relevant information has been utilized in the current study.
Schuylkill Valley Metro Feasibility Study
Prepared for SEPTA and BARTA
Prepared by [ADD]
June 1998
Schuylkill Valley Metro MIS / DEIS
Prepared for SEPTA and BARTA
Prepared by Urban Engineers
September 2001
Schuylkill Valley Rail Assessment Study
Prepared for Norfolk Southern Corporation
Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff
March 2005
Phoenixville Main Line Passenger Rail Assessment
Prepared for Phoenixville Main Street Community Development Corporation
Prepared by Gannett Fleming
April 2008
R6 Norristown Line Service Extension Study
Prepared for Montgomery County Planning Commission and DVRPC
Prepared by DMJM-Harris and AECOM
February 2009
US 422 Corridor Master Plan Summary Report
Prepared for Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC)
Prepared by McCormick Taylor
December 2010
Restoration of rail passenger service in the 422 Corridor between Norristown and Reading was the objective of a PennDOT contract with a private rail operator in 1982, a demonstration for SEPTA in 1985 of a British Leyland Railbus, and SEPTA’s issuance of a Request for Proposals for “turnkey” restoration of service between Norristown and reading in 1987.1 Unfortunately, none of these initiatives led to successful restoration of rail service.
4. PROPOSED DEMONSTRATION SERVICE
This Section provides a summary-level description of the proposed demonstration service, which is supported by more detailed information presented in the balance of the Report. This material, when combined with selected other sections of this Study Report, constitutes a conceptual-level Operating Plan for the demonstration.
4.1 Service Route
The proposed demonstration service would operate between the Borough of Phoenixville and the City of Philadelphia, via:
1. The NS Harrisburg Line between Controlled Point (CP) Phoenix in Phoenixville, through Schuylkill and Upper Merion Townships to CP Norris in Bridgeport Borough;
2. The SEPTA Norristown Connecting Track across the Schuylkill River between CP Norris and CP Kalb in Norristown Borough;
3. The SEPTA Norristown Regional Rail Line through the Norristown Transportation Center between CP Kalb and CP 16thStreet Junction in Philadelphia; and,
4. The SEPTA Main Line between CP 16thStreet Junction and the upper level of 30thStreet Station, with intermediate stops at Temple University, Jefferson (formerly Market East), and Suburban Stations.
This route is anticipated to provide passengers with a one-seat ride over the entire route between the largest volume origins and destinations. The route is illustrated in Exhibit 3.
EXHIBIT 3 – PROPOSED DEMONSTRATION SERVICE ROUTE
Alternative commuter rail routes between Phoenixville and Philadelphia have been examined in previous studies, and include routing via NS to Zoo Interlocking in Philadelphia and thence to the upper level at 30thStreet Station and through the SEPTA Center City Commuter Connection (CCCC or “Center City Tunnel”) to Temple University, as well as routing to the lower level at 30thStreet Station and terminating there. Alternative routes such as these have not been examined in the preparation of this Study, and are not planned to be considered unless the route proposed herein is deemed unacceptable by host railroads SEPTA and NS.
4.2 Stations and Operating Schedule
New stations to be served have been identified in Phoenixville Borough and Schuylkill Township in Chester County, and in Upper Merion Township near King of Prussia in Montgomery County; specific locations of proposed new stations are addressed in
Section 7.1. Existing SEPTA stations to be served are the Norristown Transportation Center, Temple University, Jefferson, Suburban and 30thStreet Stations. Service during the demonstration is proposed to be limited to peak-periods on weekdays only, with the understanding that, if the demonstration is successful, the service could continue on a longer-term basis, and the level of service could eventually be expanded to include off-peak and/or weekend trips. A potentially feasible schedule for the proposed demonstration service was developed using a preliminary examination of SEPTA schedules as described in Section 5.2of this Report, and is presented in Exhibit 4.
Section 7.1. Existing SEPTA stations to be served are the Norristown Transportation Center, Temple University, Jefferson, Suburban and 30thStreet Stations. Service during the demonstration is proposed to be limited to peak-periods on weekdays only, with the understanding that, if the demonstration is successful, the service could continue on a longer-term basis, and the level of service could eventually be expanded to include off-peak and/or weekend trips. A potentially feasible schedule for the proposed demonstration service was developed using a preliminary examination of SEPTA schedules as described in Section 5.2of this Report, and is presented in Exhibit 4.
EXHIBIT 4 – PRELIMINARY DEMONSTRATION SERVICE SCHEDULE
A.M. PEAK PERIOD
Demo 1
|
Demo 3
|
Demo 5
| |
Phoenixville
|
6:26
|
6:54
|
7:39
|
Schuylkill Township
|
6:31
|
6:59
|
7:44
|
King of Prussia
|
6:36
|
7:04
|
7:49
|
Norristown
|
6:41
|
7:09
|
7:54
|
Temple University
|
7:06
|
7:34
|
8:19
|
Jefferson Station
|
7:12
|
7:39
|
8:25
|
Suburban Station
|
7:17
|
7:44
|
8:30
|
30th Street Station
|
7:21
|
7:48
|
8:34
|
P.M. PEAK PERIOD
Demo 2
|
Demo 4
|
Demo 6
| |
30th Street Station
|
4:37
|
5:31
|
6:28
|
Suburban Station
|
4:42
|
5:36
|
6:33
|
Jefferson Station
|
4:47
|
5:41
|
6:38
|
Temple University
|
4:52
|
5:46
|
6:42
|
Norristown
|
5:17
|
6:11
|
7:07
|
King of Prussia
|
5:22
|
6:16
|
7:12
|
Schuylkill Township
|
5:27
|
6:21
|
7:17
|
Phoenixville
|
5:32
|
6:26
|
7:22
|
It is important to note that if it is agreed among the major stakeholders that the demonstration service should be implemented, it would be imperative to perform computer simulation of the proposed schedule to confirm that it is viable, especially in terms of potential conflicts on SEPTA at CP 16thStreet Junction and on NS in the vicinity of Abrams Yard.
4.3 Proposed Demonstration Service Operator
The character of the demonstration service, as an operation of limited scope on the tracks of a commuter rail agency – SEPTA – and a freight railroad – NS – significantly affects the choice of an operator. As discussed in Section 9.1of this report, for a variety of reasons, it is proposed that the demonstration service be operated by SEPTA.
4.4 Rolling Stock Service and Storage Facilities
Rolling stock servicing and maintenance, as well as mid-day storage, are proposed to take place at SEPTA’s Overbrook Maintenance Facility. This approach is consistent with the SEPTA being the proposed operator, would avoid the need to construct servicing and maintenance repair facilities for the demonstration, and could be accomplished without modification or expansion of SEPTA’s existing facilities at Overbrook.
Three candidate locations have been identified for overnight and weekend storage of rolling stock. Selection of a preferred location has been deferred pending receipt of feedback from NS. The candidate locations are described in Section 7.2.4of this Study Report.
5. OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY
The operational feasibility of the proposed commuter rail demonstration service depends primarily upon two considerations that directly affect the cost to implement the service: the existing conditions of the infrastructure over which the service would operate; and, the capacity of that infrastructure to accommodate the proposed service.
5.1 Existing Conditions
The entire proposed route in currently in service and in good repair, hosting multiple passenger and freight trains every day over different portions of the route. A track chart depicting the current track configuration is provided in Appendix A.
The NS Harrisburg Line is double-tracked between CP Phoenix and CP Valley, and triple-tracked between CP Valley and CP Norris. The NS portion of the proposed route is not electrified and would require diesel operation.
The SEPTA Connecting Track between CP Norris and CP Kalb was previously double tracked, but is now single-tracked as a result of one track being taken out-of-service and partially removed. The SEPTA Norristown Line portion of the route between CP Kalb and CP 16thStreet Junction is double-tracked in its entirety, while the SEPTA Main Line consists of four tracks of which 1.8 route miles are located within the CCCC. The SEPTA portion of the route is electrified and will require electric operation due to CCCC restrictions.
5.1.1 Track– The entire alignment of the proposed demonstration service route is currently in operation. SEPTA track on the proposed route between Philadelphia and Norristown is maintained to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Class III or better, permitting operation of passenger trains at a maximum authorized speed (MAS) of 60 MPH and freight trains at 40 MPH, except where constrained by geometry and other conditions. NS track on the proposed route between Norristown and Phoenixville is generally maintained to FRA Class IV standards, which allows 60 MPH freight train and 80 MPH passenger train operation, subject to geometry and conditions; NS currently allows 50 MPH freight train operation in this territory.2
5.1.2 Signals– The NS Harrisburg Line between CP Phoenix and CP Norris is generally directionally signaled (Rule 251) following right-hand running rule, except for Track 1, which is bi-directionally signaled (Rule 261). Signal system improvements observed being made by NS during the First Half of 2018 are anticipated to achieve bi-directional signaling between CP Phoenix and CP Norris.
5.1.3 Positive Train Control– Signal system improvements observed being made by NS during the First Half of 2018 between CP Phoenix and CP Norris are understood to include implementation of the wayside elements of Positive Train Control (PTC) in this territory. Exhibit 5 illustrates the installation at Phoenixville of an PTC antenna and new signal masts.
SEPTA has been operating with PTC on its Norristown Line since August 15, 2016 and on its Main Line between Fern Rock and 30thStreet Station since January 9, 2017.3
NS freight trains operate over the SEPTA Norristown Line through Norristown between CP Kalb and CP Ford, demonstrating that, when fully implemented, the new SEPTA and NS PTC systems are cross-compatible and that the proposed demonstration service can operate without extraordinary modification to train-board or wayside PTC equipment.
EXHIBIT 5 – PTC INSTALLATION AT PHOENIXVILLE
5.2 Route Capacity
Route capacity is a critical consideration, as the proposed demonstration service must be designed to avoid causing delays to SEPTA passenger trains and NS freight trains. This Study is not scoped to include computer simulation of the proposed service and route, but limited examinations were performed of SEPTA and NS operations to preliminarily determine feasibility. Computer simulation of the proposed service and route will be necessary if the decision is made to implement the demonstration service.
5.2.1 Estimated Trip Times
The examination of capacity issues requires estimation of trip times between proposed stations and other important locations along the route, such as CP Norris on NS and CP 16thStreet Junction on SEPTA. Estimates of trip times were developed using current SEPTA scheduled times between existing stations and calculated times between proposed and existing stations. The development of estimated trip times is described in Appendix B. The estimated trip times were relied upon in the examinations of capacity issues described inSections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3, as well as the preliminary timetable presented in Section 4.2
5.2.2 SEPTA Passenger Operations
Two capacity related issues are immediately apparent when considering operation of the proposed demonstration service over the SEPTA Norristown and Main Lines. First is the identification of potential “slots” between currently scheduled SEPTA trains, that would be sufficient to avoid delays caused by interactions with trains preceding and following demonstration trains; this is an issue both on the Norristown Line, where the demonstration trains would not make local stops and would therefore require less time to traverse the line, and on the Main Line where the volume of peak period traffic is very large. Second is the potential interaction with other SEPTA trains at CP 16thStreet Junction, where trains moving in either direction could be delayed by or cause delay to the demonstration trains.
It is recognized that a computer simulation of SEPTA operations between Norristown and 30thStreet Station will be essential before plans for the proposed demonstration service can be finalized. However, to preliminarily evaluate these issues, an analysis was performed of SEPTA’s current operating schedule over its portion of the proposed route, with particular attention being paid to 16thStreet Junction. The preliminary evaluation consisted of an examination of current SEPTA schedules for directly affected lines for the inbound (to Center City) morning peak period and the outbound (from Center City) evening peak period. Slots between currently scheduled trains were identified assuming headways no smaller than those currently scheduled by SEPTA. These slots were also reviewed to confirm they did not create overtakes or other conflicts specifically on the Norristown Line. Lines examined included: Norristown, Lansdale/Doylestown, West Trenton, Chestnut Hill East, Warminster, Glenside and Fox Chase. Additional details of this analysis are presented in Appendix C.
5.2.3 NS Freight Operations
NS freight traffic was quantified in the 2004 Schuylkill Valley Rail Assessment, at some 258 train movements per week on the NS Harrisburg Line west of CP Norris. Both the overall quantity of train movements and the combination of types of train traffic have undoubtedly changed since that time, and as rail traffic growth continues, capacity issues are anticipated to arise on the NS Harrisburg Line even without the restoration of rail passenger service.
Absent a computer simulation, there is no meaningful means by which to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed demonstration service on NS freight operations. However, the most significant capacity improvement recommended by the 2004 study, to accommodate a much greater volume of passenger service, was to convert the existing 251 signal system to bi-directional 261 signaling, which as noted above is now taking place. Therefore, and until such time as a simulation is performed using more current NS freight operations data, it would be reasonable to assume that the existing NS track layout, combined with the signal system improvements currently being implemented, would be able to accommodate the extremely limited number of demonstration trains (three per peak period on weekdays only). However, to preserve a conservative perspective on the critical subject of route capacity, a new left-handed crossover has been assumed to be added at the east end of CP Norris, as was proposed based on simulations performed previously, for a seven trains per peak period weekdays-only service, to provide improved route assignment flexibility for NS freight trains.
6. POTENTIAL RIDERSHIP
The potential demand for the proposed commuter rail demonstration service has been analyzed by modifying the ridership forecast developed for the Schuylkill Valley Metro (SVM) project. That forecast was developed using the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) planning model, which is considered the authoritative tool for developing such forecasts in the region. The development of a forecast specifically for the proposed demonstration service consisted of the following five steps, described here and presented in tables in Attachment D.
Extract relevant data from trip table– The primary source material was the trip table for the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in the SEPTA Schuylkill Valley Metro MIS/DEIS dated September 2001, provided here as Exhibit 6. Because the SVM Project was larger in scope, including the portion of the U.S. 422 Corridor between Phoenixville and Reading, only selected trip production and trip attraction stations are relevant to the proposed demonstration project. Specifically, only the following locations were used:
Trip Production Locations
Phoenixville
Oaks
Perkiomen Junction
Port Kennedy
King of Prussia
Trip Attraction Locations
Temple University
Market East Station (Now Jefferson)
Suburban Station
30thStreet Station
King of Prussia
The trip production locations used were identified to be within the potential catchment areas of proposed station locations for the demonstration service. Trip attraction locations consisted of Temple University, the three Center City Philadelphia locations, and – because of its large concentration of employment – King of Prussia. Norristown was also included because the volume of potential trips from the identified trip generators to Norristown was significant in the context of the other trip attraction locations; SEPTA stations between Norristown and Temple University were not included, both because of the very small, single-digit volumes at most locations and the potential volume reductions that might result from a forced transfer at Norristown. The possibility of having the demonstration service trains directly serve SEPTA stations at Conshohocken and North Broad was specifically considered and dismissed, as addressed in Section 7.1.4of this Study.
EXHIBIT 6 – SCHUYLKILL VALLEY METRO LPA RIDERSHIP FORECAST
Modify for differences in proposed route– Three trip production locations are affected by differences between the routes proposed for Schuylkill Valley Metro and the demonstration service: Oaks; Port Kennedy; and, King of Prussia.
Oaks: The alignment of the proposed demonstration service does not directly serve the station site identified at Oaks as part of the SVM LPA. Access via Pawlings Road to the Perkiomen Junction station site is assumed to be sufficiently convenient to attract a portion of the riders previously forecasted to use the Oaks station, to the Perkiomen Junction location. For the demonstration, one half of the previously estimated values at Oaks have been retained.
Port Kennedy: The Port Kennedy station site identified as part of the SVM LPA is the historical location of the former Reading Railroad station. This site is approximately one-half mile from the location of the King of Prussia station identified for the proposed demonstration service. Because of the superior site access of the proposed King of Prussia location and its more central position among nearby residential and commercial developments, all of the previously estimated passenger volume at Port Kennedy has been retained for the demonstration service, except for the portion for which King of Prussia is a destination.
King of Prussia: The SVM LPA assumed direct service to the center of King of Prussia as a spur via the former Abrams Industrial Track. Access to the center of King of Prussia for the demonstration service is assumed to be effected via a circulator bus that serves the proposed station site. Because of the forced transfer, only one-half of the riders estimated to use the SVM station at King of Prussia are assumed to use the demonstration service
Modify for changes in service type and level– The Schuylkill Valley Metro Project preferred alternative was a transit style service, with frequent headways and service during the midday and evening and on weekends. This is in marked contrast to the weekday peak periods only schedule proposed for the demonstration service. To reflect the significant difference in service type and level, and based on the ratios of peak to off-peak volume for other passenger rail services, and the lack of weekend service, the volumes were reduced to 25 percent of the previously calculated values.
Factor for changes in population– The DVRPC ridership forecasts were produced in 2001 and are understood to be based on 2000 or older Census data; to preserve the conservative nature of the estimate, the 2000 Census has been assumed to be the source. To account for changes in population since then, values were modified based on 2010 Census data and newer municipal population estimates.
Phoenixville ridership has been assumed to increase by 14.0% based on the population of Phoenixville Borough having increased by that percentage between 2000 and 2016. Ridership estimated for Oaks and Perkiomen Junction have been assumed to increase by 20.7% based on the population of Schuylkill Township, in which both are located, having increased by that percentage between 2000 and 2010. Port Kennedy and King of Prussia ridership estimates have been assumed to increase by 7.7% based on the population of King of Prussia having increased by that percentage between 2000 and 2010. No attempt was made to further adjust ridership beyond the ratios associated with population growth through 2010 or 2016, due to the lack of reliable data and because not making such an attempt would preserve the conservative nature of the estimate.
Modify to reflect proposed stations– In this final step, the estimated ridership values are consolidated from five locations to three to present the estimate in a manner consistent with the proposed station locations for the demonstration service. Specifically, the values for Oaks and Perkiomen Junction were combined and labeled Perkiomen Junction, and the values for Port Kennedy and King of Prussia were combined and labeled King of Prussia, as shown in Exhibit 7. This step did not affect any of the totals by line item or column, because all changes in the estimate that would result from the differences in station locations between the SVM LPA and the proposed demonstration service had already been incorporated.
EXHIBIT 7 – DEMONSTRATION RIDERSHIP ESTIMATE
7. PROPOSED FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
Some aspects of the existing physical infrastructure will require repair and improvement, and new facilities will need to be designed and constructed to support the proposed demonstration service. Specific infrastructure has been identified, along with sets of assumptions regarding the scope of the associated repairs, improvements and new construction.
7.1 Stations
The proposed demonstration service will require a suitable station location in Phoenixville and would benefit from potentially increased ridership generated by one or more new intermediate stations between Phoenixville and Norristown. It is assumed that the demonstration service would include stops at SEPTA’s Norristown Transportation Center, and at all Center City stations. The possibility of including stops at additional SEPTA stations is addressed in Section 7.1.4of this report.
7.1.1 Approach to Identifying Station Locations
Locating a potential station consists of two basic steps: identifying the general vicinity in which sufficiently large numbers of people live and/or work to meaningfully affect ridership; and, identifying a specific suitable site. Each of these steps is discussed further in the following paragraphs.
Locating the general vicinity in which a station might be viable is, as noted previously, dependent upon resident and/or employment populations. Because the orientation of the proposed demonstration service is from Phoenixville to Philadelphia in the weekday morning peak period, and from Philadelphia to Phoenixville in the weekday evening peak, viable candidate stations would serve persons who live between Phoenixville and Norristown, and work in Philadelphia or to a lesser degree, King of Prussia and Norristown. Possible new intermediate stations were identified by examining satellite images to locate areas of significant residential development near the railroad, and by examining the areas surrounding the historic former Reading Railroad stations in Schuylkill and Upper Merion Townships. As a result, potential specific station sites were investigated for these areas.
Identification of specific sites that are suitable for development of a station, either on a short-term basis for the demonstration service, or on a long-term basis if the service were to become “permanent” involves several essential considerations:
· Adjacency to the railroad property– Station platforms would be located on railroad property, as a result of right-of-way (ROW) dimensions and ownership along the proposed route, but – at the risk of stating the obvious – viable candidate station sites must be adjacent to the railroad property to enable development of an integrated facility that combines the platform with suitable parking and roadway elements.
· Convenient Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Routes– Pedestrian and bicycle access to stations will vary in importance by individual station location, generally being more important in more urbanized environments such as Phoenixville. Such access requires a well-maintained sidewalk network and bicycle friendly infrastructure.
· Convenient Access to the Local Roadway Network– Although at some locations, notably Phoenixville itself, there is potential for a meaningful portion of passengers to access the demonstration service by walking and bicycle, experience suggests that the majority of passengers will access stations via automobile. It is preferable that station sites be located on or near arterial roadways, that can safely handle a brief surge of traffic, particularly during the evening peak period immediately following train arrivals and the rapid alighting of significant numbers of passengers.
· Size to Accommodate Sufficient Parking Spaces– Industry experience shows that in excess of 85% of potential passengers will access demonstration service stations by automobile, and if the available parking is too limited, ridership will be constrained.
· Railroad operational and safety factors – Two such factors figure prominently in siting candidate stations: whether demonstration service trains would use both or only one track between CP Phoenix and CP Norris; and, avoiding locating stations on curves.
The issue of whether all demonstration service trains would be limited to one NS track or use both, revolves around passengers crossing active freight tracks. Limiting the demonstration service trains to one of the two NS tracks and locating stations only at sites on the same one side of the tracks, would eliminate the need for passengers to cross an active track. This would significantly reduce station capital costs and minimize financial risks for the demonstration. This method of operation is currently employed for commuter trains operating on NS tracks in Virginia. Its feasibility is established by the bi-directional Rule 261 signaling currently being installed between CP Phoenix and CP Norris.
However, NS might consider this approach to be an unacceptable constraint on train dispatching flexibility. If NS were to insist on retaining the option to operate the demonstration service trains on any track, it would introduce new hazards. In that case, the need for passengers to cross active tracks would likely have to be accomplished by building a grade-separated pedestrian crossing, such as a bridge or underpass, which would significantly raise the capital costs and financial risk for the demonstration service.
Subject to policy direction from NS, and based both upon current NS practice by which commuter trains in Virginia operate in both directions on one track in double track territory, and previous studies concluding that bi-directional signaling was the primary improvement by which to create sufficient additional capacity between CP Phoenix and CP Norris to accommodate passenger service, it has been assumed that demonstration service trains will use only NS Track 2 between Phoenixville and Norristown. It is recognized that this introduces challenges to locating a station at Pawlings Road in Schuylkill Township, but further research is planned regarding location of a site in that vicinity adjacent to Track 2.
Regarding avoiding location of a station platform on curves, this is fundamentally good design practice. Location on a curve creates issues for passengers boarding and alighting because, among other things, the train is tilted as a result of the track super-elevation or cross-elevation. Accordingly, it has been assumed that – to the extent possible – all station platforms will be located on tangent track.
· Availability and Cost of Construction – Candidate station sites must be available to be leased or purchased, and must require limited construction effort to be useable as a station during the demonstration term. (This consideration varies significantly in the context of the appropriate level of capital investment in a “temporary” demonstration service versus that for a “permanent” service.)
· Cost Effectiveness– Cost effectiveness is here defined to refer to the scale of the capital and maintenance costs for a particular demonstration service station, relative to the potential ridership at that station and the perception by prospective passengers of the convenience, safety and security, and attractiveness of that station facility.
7.1.2 Phoenixville Station
The proposed demonstration service requires a suitable terminal station in Phoenixville. The NS rail alignment within the Borough of Phoenixville was examined in its entirety to identify possible locations for such a station; based upon this examination, the following candidate locations for the Phoenixville station have been identified; all three sites are outlined in yellow in Exhibit 8:
· “Church Site” – Approximately 1,100 feet southeast of the historic former Reading Company station (now the Columbia Station event venue) adjacent to Track #2, utilizing parking on the property of the Holy Ghost Orthodox Catholic Church.
· “Industrial Site” – Approximately 1,600 feet southeast of the historic former Reading Company station, adjacent to Track #2 within the Phoenix Industrial Complex at 41 South Second Avenue (at the foot of Manavon Avenue).
· “Bridge Street Site” – Approximately 500 feet northwest of the historic former reading Company station, adjacent to Track #1 at Bridge Street, with railroad property available for parking facilities.
EXHIBIT 8 – PHOENIXVILLE STATION CANDIDATE SITES
Each of these candidate locations is described and characterized in the table provided in Exhibit 9.
EXHIBIT 9 – PHOENIXVILLE STATION SITE EVALUATION
PROS
|
CONS
| |
Church Site
|
- Located on tangent track
- Walking distance to downtown
- Able to accommodate parking for forecasted ridership with new lot
|
- Parking area would require substantial grading and paving
- Difference in elevation between parking area and station platform would require stairs and ramps
- Roadway access via church entrance
|
Industrial Site
|
- Located on tangent track
- Includes existing paved lot immediately adjacent to railroad
- Good roadway access via Second Avenue
- Able to accommodate parking for forecasted ridership
|
- Location somewhat remote from downtown
|
Bridge Street Site
|
- Walking distance to downtown
- Good roadway access to Bridge Street
|
- Located on curved track
- Parking area would require substantial grading and paving, and appears too small to accommodate forecasted ridership
|
Based on these characteristics, the Phoenix Industrial Complex site at 41 South Second Avenue is proposed to be leased to serve as the Phoenixville station for the demonstration service. At such time as the service to Phoenixville might become permanent, and given their proximity to each other (approximately 500 feet apart) relocation to – or expansion to include – the Holy Ghost Church property should be examined further.
7.1.3 Additional Stations at Intermediate Locations
In addition to a terminal station in Phoenixville, other locations between Phoenixville and Norristown were also identified for consideration to be developed as stations during the demonstration. Examination of residential densities, employment centers, and the local roadway network has resulted in identification of the following candidate station sites:
Schuylkill Township– In Schuylkill Township, the NS rail alignment is relatively inaccessible over most of its length; a notable exception is the underpass beneath the railroad at Pawlings Road, which is the site of the former Reading Railroad Perkiomen Junction station and is relatively easily accessible via the local road network. A site at or near this underpass would be convenient for residents of parts of Phoenixville Borough and Schuylkill Township.
There is adequate space to locate a platform adjacent to Track 2 on railroad property, either immediately south of Pawlings Road in front of the former Reading Railroad station, or immediately north of Pawlings Road. (Both locations are outlined in red in Exhibit 8.) There are no suitable sites for parking immediately adjacent to these platform locations, but multiple nearby properties have been identified for further study; these include vacant land adjacent to Track 1 and north of Pawlings Road, wooded railroad property adjacent to Track 1 and south of Pawlings Road, and railroad property and the site of the Valley Forge Sewer Authority adjacent to Track #1 north of Pawlings Road. (These three locations are outlined in yellow in Exhibit 8.) Each of these sites present potential roadway access issues and will require additional examination to determine whether a station in this general location is feasible for the demonstration service. Subject to such additional research, it has been assumed that a station would be located at Pawlings Road.
EXHIBIT 8 – SCHUYLKILL TOWNSHIP STATION CANDIDATE SITES
Valley Forge– This station is located at the west end of Valley Forge National Historic Park near Washington’s Headquarters. The station facilities have the advantage of being in excellent condition due to being maintained by the National Park Service (NPS) and having roadway access already in-place. Unfortunately, its potential as an origin is virtually eliminated due to the lack of available parking, and its potential as a destination is very small given the weekday peak period only schedule for the demonstration service. Additionally, the NPS has not shown support for past efforts to re-activate this station for passenger rail service.
For these reasons, Valley Forge Station is not considered a viable candidate station for the demonstration service and is not included further in this Study. However, at such time as the service to Phoenixville may become permanent, and off-peak and/or weekend service be implemented, the NPS should be contacted to determine their interest in including a stop at the Valley Forge Station.
King of Prussia– There are four candidate locations in the vicinity of the US 422 crossing of the Schuylkill River that would be convenient to residential areas and employment centers in King of Prussia. Two of the locations are immediately west of the Schuylkill River Bridge at the site of the former Reading Railroad Port Kennedy Station (also known as “Valley Forge park” Station), one adjacent to Track #2 and another directly opposite and adjacent to Track #1. The third location is immediately east of the Schuylkill River Bridge adjacent to Track #2 and is currently being used as a construction staging site for reconstruction of the US 422 bridge. The fourth is located at the end of Mancill Mill Road. These candidate sites are outlined in yellow in Exhibit 9.
EXHIBIT 9 – KING OF PRUSSIA STATION CANDIDATE SITES
Each of these candidate locations is described and characterized in the table provided in Exhibit 10.
EXHIBIT 10 – KING OF PRUSSIA STATION SITE EVALUATION
Based on these considerations, this Study assumes a station to serve King of Prussia would be located at the Mancill Mill site. It is noteworthy that the King of Prussia Business Improvement District (KOP-BID) supports multiple programs to promote and improve King of Prussia as a location to both live and work, such as their operation of a shuttle service within the commercial district. KOP-BID could prove to be a helpful partner in developing the proposed station, by – for example – expanding its shuttle operations to serve such a station.
7.1.4 Service to Additional SEPTA Stations
Conshohocken– Conshohocken has become a substantial employment center in recent years. The SVM Preferred Option Trip Table suggests that having the demonstration service trains stop at Conshohoken could add a meaningful number of riders by providing a convenient transportation option for persons living in Phoenixville, Schuylkill Township or King of Prussia who work in Conshohocken. However, adding a stop could also add complexity to the schedule and fare collection. For this reason, addition of a stop at Conshohocken has not been assumed, but would be incorporated at such time as SEPTA might provide its approval.
North Broad– North Broad was not shown to be a significant destination in the SVM Preferred Option Trip Table. Additionally, SEPTA Regional Rail Norristown Line trains currently serve North Broad. For these reasons, North Broad has not been included as a stop for the demonstration service.
7.1.5 Station Design Standards
NS engineering standards govern the design of platforms and other passenger facilities within its right-of-way and in proximity of operating tracks. NS standards for the general arrangement of facilities at passenger stations are found in the Norfolk Southern Passenger Station Requirements(as revised December 15, 2011). The Norfolk Southern Public Projects Manual(effective September 23, 2013) states that NS requires passenger platforms to be no higher than eight-inches above top of rail (ATR) and no closer than
64-inches (5’-4”) to the centerline of track. No passenger facility improvements are anticipated on SEPTA right of way.
64-inches (5’-4”) to the centerline of track. No passenger facility improvements are anticipated on SEPTA right of way.
7.2 Rolling Stock Servicing and Storage Facilities
7.2.1 Midday Layover and Service Facilities– Midday storage and servicing is proposed to take place at SEPTA’s Overbrook Maintenance Facility. This approach would avoid the need to develop expensive facilities for equipment servicing, maintenance and repairs for the demonstration. Subject to further discussion with SEPTA, no improvements or modifications to the Overbrook facility are envisioned to be necessary to accommodate such storage and servicing.
7.2.2 Overnight and Weekend Storage Facilities– Overnight and weekend storage should be located in or near Phoenixville to minimize avoidable and expensive movement of the trains between the Phoenixville Station and the storage facility. Other than train storage, activities at this facility would be limited to minor janitorial servicing of the train interiors, and minor essential repairs, such as brake shoe or air hose replacements. Three candidate locations have been identified:
· NS Track 2 at the Phoenixville Station;
· The former Peco Energy Cromby generating plant; and,
· NS track at Perkiomen Junction.
Each of these locations offers advantages and disadvantages, as summarized in the table provided in Exhibit 11. Most importantly, each location creates different potential operating considerations for NS. Accordingly, identification of an assumed location has been deferred until the subject can be discussed in detail with NS.
EXHIBIT 11 – STORAGE FACILITY SITE EVALUATION
PROS
|
CONS
| |
NS Track 2 at Phoenixville Station
|
- Eliminates deadhead train mileage
- Avoids Black Rock Tunnel potential bottleneck
- Trains provide shelter to passengers while waiting for morning departures
|
- Requires NS to reconfigure newly upgraded CP Phoenix with new crossover and associated signal modifications
- Increases length of single track territory at Black Rock Tunnel bottleneck
|
Former PECO Cromby Generating Station
|
- Located off NS property
- Site available
- Site does not require new track construction
|
- Requires operation through single track Black Rock Tunnel bottleneck
- Requires substantial track renovation at storage site
- Adds deadhead train miles
|
NS Track at Perkiomen Junction
|
- Located off NS Main Line
- Site assumed available
|
- Requires access to Track 1 via single track segment at CP Phoenix
- Requires substantial track renovation and construction
- Adds deadhead train miles
- Could interfere with potential station parking site
|
Consistent with this approach, capital costs or the overnight and weekend storage facility are assumed to be the highest values among the candidate locations. Specifically, the capital costs are based on use of the former Peco Cromby generating station. Costs include rehabilitation of one of the two side tracks in the NS right-of-way, the track into and within the facility, and the seven associated turnouts. Repairs to, and extension of, the existing security fence are also proposed. No bridge renovation costs are included, as the plant site is understood to be proposed for redevelopment and the bridge across the Schuylkill River is understood to have been recently inspected and found to be sound for continued operation.
7.3 Other Railroad Infrastructure
Improvements to railroad infrastructure are envisioned to be necessary to support the proposed demonstration service, as described in the following subsections.
7.3.1 Track– The NS Harrisburg Division between CP Norris and CP Phoenix is generally maintained to FRA Class IV standards, allowing a MAS 60 MPH for freight trains and 80 MPH for passenger trains, subject to limitations due to alignment and track geometry and other conditions. No work is proposed to improve MAS on any NS tracks to support the proposed demonstration.
To provide additional flexibility to NS freight trains in their routing westward from CP Norris, a new left-handed crossover is proposed to be installed at CP Norris.
Track rehabilitation and/or modifications are anticipated to be required on NS to implement one of the three candidate locations identified in Section 7.2.2of this Report, for an overnight and weekend storage facility. Specific work required varies among the candidate location, consisting of varying degrees of rehabilitation of existing track and construction of new crossovers and track.
The only new track construction on SEPTA anticipated to be necessary to support the proposed demonstration service is a left-handed crossover at CP Kalb in Norristown, to allow westbound demonstration trains departing Norristown to be routed to SEPTA’s Norristown Connecting Track and the bridge over the Schuylkill River.
NS engineering standards will govern the design of track improvements within its right-of-way and in proximity of operating tracks. NS standards are found in the Norfolk Southern Public Projects Manual, effective September 23, 2013. No track improvements are anticipated on SEPTA right of way.
7.3.2 Signals– In light of the signal system improvements currently being implemented by NS on their Harrisburg Main Line, no signal system improvements are anticipated to be necessary specifically to support the proposed demonstration service, other than those modifications necessitated by the proposed a new crossover in Bridgeport at CP Norris and possibly necessary to implement one of the three candidate locations for overnight and weekend storage. Similarly, signal system modifications on SEPTA are anticipated to be limited to those required as part of the installation of a new crossover in Norristown at CP Kalb.
NS engineering standards will govern the design of signal improvements within its right-of-way and in proximity of operating tracks. NS standards are found in the Norfolk Southern Public Projects Manual, effective September 23, 2013. No signal improvements are anticipated on SEPTA right of way.
7.3.3 PTC – PTC is currently in operation on the SEPTA portion of the proposed route and is currently being implemented on the NS portion of the route. NS implementation of PTC is anticipated to be completed well in advance of the potential inauguration of the demonstration service and throughout the proposed route including the Norristown Connecting Track. No additional PTC related improvements are anticipated to be necessitated by the proposed demonstration project.
8. PROPOSED ROLLING STOCK
The proposed demonstration service would require rolling stock that is capable of operating over the unelectrified Norfolk Southern main line between Norristown and Phoenixville, and over the 12 kV 25 Hz AC electrified SEPTA route between Norristown and Philadelphia, through the Center City Connector Tunnel. Rolling stock alternatives are limited to existing equipment that may be available for lease during the term of the demonstration. All locomotives to be used in the demonstration must be equipped with Positive Train Control (PTC). In the interest of limiting capital cost, leased rolling stock is not proposed to be re-painted for the proposed demonstration service.
The demonstration service is proposed to be operated using three trains, each consisting of four cars plus either one or two locomotives as discussed in the following subsections; spare cars would also be required, either as part of the lease(s) of rolling stock or through separate agreements.
8.1 Dual Mode Locomotives Operated in Push-Pull Mode
Each of the proposed demonstration train consists must employ either one dual-mode locomotive that combines diesel and electric capabilities and would be operated in “push-pull” fashion, or two locomotives, one of which is a diesel and one of which is an electric that would be attached to a train at each end and would be operated in “pull-pull” fashion. Dual-mode locomotives in North America that have diesel engines and can use 12 kV 25 Hz AC overhead catenary as their power source are limited to the Bombardier model ALP-45DP. These units have been operated since 2012 by New Jersey Transit (NJT) between northern New Jersey and New York City via Amtrak’s Hudson River tunnels, and by Exo, the commuter rail agency in Montreal, Canada, on the Mascouche Line serving Montreal’s Central Station via the Mount Royal Tunnel. These units are illustrated in Exhibit 12.
EXHIBIT 12 – BOMBARDIER ALP-45DP LOCOMOTIVES AT KASSEL, GERMANY
The Exo units are understood to be limited to 25 kV 60 Hz AC current, which if correct, would make them unsuitable for the demonstration. The NJT units can operate on 12 kV 25 Hz and 25 kV 60 Hz current making them suitable, but they may be utilized by NJT at a level that makes them unavailable for use on the demonstration. The proposed demonstration service would require three dual-mode locomotives, not including spares.
8.2 Single Mode Locomotives Operated in Pull-Pull Mode
If no NJT ALP-45DP locomotives are available to be leased for the demonstration, an alternative approach is to use two locomotives on each trainset – one on each end of a trainset, and one diesel and one electric. It is virtually certain that there are sufficient locomotives currently available to employ this approach, and potentially at significantly lower lease cost than the relatively rare dual-mode units.
8.2.1 Electric Single-Mode Locomotives
Regarding available electric locomotives, Amtrak has retired its fleet of AEM7 locomotives during 2014-2016 and replaced them with new Siemens ACS-64 units. Similarly, SEPTA is currently in the process of retiring its fleet of seven AEM7 and one ALP44 electric locomotives to replace them with fifteen Siemens ACS64 units. Between SEPTA and Amtrak, sufficient electric locomotives should be available to lease for the proposed demonstration; this includes spare units that would be made available if and as needed to replace a failed locomotive. The proposed demonstration service would require three electric locomotives, not including spares.
8.2.2 Diesel Single-Mode Locomotives
Suitable passenger diesel locomotives are anticipated to be available for lease from one or more sources, as a result of new locomotive deliveries making older locomotives surplus or as a result of spare ratios allowing for the temporary re-deployment of one or more units. Candidate agencies that may be able to provide one or more units for the demonstration include Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC), New Jersey Transit (NJT), Virginia Railway Express (VRE), Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), Metra and Amtrak. The proposed demonstration service would require three diesel locomotives, not including spares.
8.3 Passenger Coaches
Passenger coaches for the proposed demonstration must meet the clearance limitations of the proposed route between Phoenixville and Philadelphia, must be capable of level boarding at platform heights of 48” and 8” above the top of rail, and must be interoperable with the locomotives to be leased. Commuter rail agencies in the Northeast Corridor routinely loan rolling stock, including passenger coaches, to each other for various reasons, and such agencies are candidate sources of passenger coaches for the demonstration; these agencies include Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC), New Jersey Transit (NJT), and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). It is noteworthy that SEPTA has new cars on order, potentially making some existing “Comet” single-level cars surplus and available.
The proposed demonstration would require twelve cars, not including spares. Of these, three would need to be cab cars if the dual-mode locomotives are available and the trains operate in push-pull mode; no cab cars would be needed if the trains operate in pull-pull mode with a diesel locomotive at one end and an electric locomotive at the other. Lastly, because the travel times on the demonstration service trains is comparable to those on current SEPTA Regional Rail trains, the cars for the demonstration are not required to have lavatories.
9.0 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
Implementation of the demonstration project would require resolution of multiple institutional issues, chief among these being defining the relationships with NS and SEPTA to gain access to their track and facilities, and to engage them to provide various services. There is also the fundamental issue of what entity might be the sponsoring agency and grant recipient for the proposed demonstration. Relationships with third parties for various support functions may also present one or more significant institutional issues. It is anticipated that subsequent discussions and negotiations with NS and SEPTA will address most if not all of these issues, but until such exchanges take place, the following assumptions have been made regarding the governance and the envisioned relationships with NS and SEPTA.
SEPTA is assumed to:
Be the sponsoring agency and grant recipient;
Operate the service (transportation) using their employees; and,
Perform rolling stock servicing and provide mid-day storage at Overbrook.
NS is assumed to:
Provide access on a train-mile basis; and,
Perform capital improvements to its infrastructure on a force account basis.
Third Parties are assumed to:
Lease rolling stock to SEPTA (SEPTA may use some of its own equipment);
Construct and maintain station and parking facilities;
Rehabilitate and maintain track at the overnight and weekend storage site; and,
Provide security services at the overnight and weekend site.
SEPTA operation of the service includes all aspects of SEPTA’s own Regional Rail operations, including ticketing and revenue management.
Access to NS must be negotiated, because SEPTA relinquished its rights to operate trains over Conrail to Reading and Pottsville in 1988, when the Conrail-SEPTA Trackage Rights Agreement was renegotiated4.
9.1 Operators Other Than SEPTA
Candidate operators for the proposed demonstration include the host railroads – SEPTA and NS – and private operators, such as Keolis North America and Herzog Transit Services, Inc. Consideration of the following factors favor SEPTA being the operator:
· Grant Funding Administration– SEPTA would be the grant recipient for funds sought by the Borough of Phoenixville and private sources;
· Cost Advantage– SEPTA would be the lowest cost operator, because the proposed service largely overlaps with the SEPTA Regional Rail network, leveraging SEPTA’s existing cost structure, including such cost elements as rolling stock maintenance;
· Labor Agreements– SEPTA labor agreements may entitle SEPTA crews to perform the work associated with operation of the demonstration service.
· Rolling Stock– SEPTA is in the process of replacing its electric locomotives and unpowered coach fleet, making the rolling stock to be retired surplus and potentially available to equip the proposed demonstration service, including provision of spares; and,
· Insurance– SEPTA’s existing insurance program is anticipated to comply with NS requirements for passenger train operation over NS tracks.
For these reasons, the demonstration service is proposed to be operated by SEPTA.
9.1 Service Identity and Marketing
Because SEPTA will be the operator of the demonstration service, it is assumed that it will be represented to the public as a SEPTA service. The demonstration should have a unique identity within the Regional Rail system, similar to the “Great Valley Flyer” express service operated on the Thorndale Line. SEPTA advertising should be expanded to include a program to build the identity of the demonstration service and specifically promote it.
The launch of the demonstration should be a media event, with free service for the first week, and free weekend trips for a few weeks in advance to familiarize potential passengers with the route.
Ongoing promotion of the demonstration service should include a website linked to the SEPTA site and municipal websites of station communities, souvenir wallet-sized timetables to be handed out on the trains, distributed at businesses in the communities around stations, and possibly distributed through municipal utility bills in those communities, and billboards on 422 suggesting that “If you took the train, you’d be there now”.
10.0 COST AND REVENUE ESTIMATES
Conceptual level capital and O&M cost estimates have been prepared using unit cost data from previous studies and projects. These cost estimates are preliminary and are subject to revision subsequent to advancing discussions with SEPTA, NS, potential providers of rolling stock, and other parties to define specific potential transactions and contract terms related to implementation of the demonstration service.
10.1 Capital Cost Estimate
The quantities for the capital cost estimate summarized in Exhibit 13 were based on the infrastructure improvements and related assumptions identified in Section 7 of this Report. A more detailed break-down of capital costs is provided in Appendix E.
EXHIBIT 13 – CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Grading and Trackwork
|
$588,000
|
Signals and Communications
|
776,000
|
Station – Phoenixville (Industrial Complex)
|
1,385,000
|
Station – Schuylkill Township (Perkiomen Junction)
|
1,631,000
|
Station – King of Prussia (Mancill Mill)
|
1,420,000
|
Overnight and Weekend Storage Facility
|
1,340,000
|
TOTAL
|
$7,140,000
|
Contingency (35%)
|
2,500,000
|
TOTAL
|
$9,640,000
|
10.2 Operating & Maintenance Cost Estimate
Because of the preliminary nature of this study, a high-level approach has been assumed for estimating operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, which are summarized in Exhibit 14. Details of this estimate are provided in Appendix F.
EXHIBIT 14 – OPERATING & MAINTENANCE COST SUMMARY
Train Operating Costs
|
$2,630,880
|
Norfolk Southern Track Access
|
58,600
|
Station Costs
|
76,500
|
Overnight & Weekend Storage Facility Costs
|
35,000
|
ANNUAL TOTAL
|
$2,800,980
|
Train operating costs are based on SEPTA cost per revenue train mile from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) database, and are assumed to include all costs of train operation, such as labor, energy, rolling stock maintenance, fare administration and overhead. Norfolk Southern track access charges are based on current rates charged by NS for commuter train operation in Virginia. Station costs and storage facility costs are based on lump sum estimates for functions such as janitorial, utilities, maintenance and security.
Two important cost elements remain to be accounted for in this O&M cost estimate: ground leases for the three station sites and the overnight and weekend storage site, and leases of rolling stock. Estimates remain in development as of the time of this draft version of the Report.
10.3 Fare Revenue Estimate
Fare revenue was estimated using current SEPTA fares, the estimated ridership trip table, and the following assumptions:
· Phoenixville, Schuylkill Township and King of Prussia stations are all assumed to be SEPTA Fare Zone 4;
· Advanced ticket sales are assumed to account for 75 percent of fares and on-board ticket sales are assumed to account for 25 percent of fares;
· The demonstration service is assumed to operate 250 days per year; and,
· SEPTA discounted multi-ride fare instruments, such as monthly pass, weekly pass, ten-trip ticket or single fare, are assumed to reduce overall fare revenue by ten percent.
Based on these assumptions, the estimated annual fare revenue that corresponds with the estimated ridership is $1,457,000. It is assumed, without specific analysis, that half this amount – or approximately $728,500 – would be realized during the first year of operation due to the ramp-up of ridership for the new service. Based on these estimates, the required operating subsidy would be approximately $2,072,480 during the first year and approximately $1,343,980 during the second year, not including the cost of leasing rolling stock.
ENDNOTES
1) Schuylkill Valley Rail Assessment Study, Parsons Brinckerhoff, March 2005
2) Norfolk Southern Harrisburg Division Track Chart 2009
3) www.SEPTA.org
4) Schuylkill Valley Rail Assessment Study, Parsons Brinckerhoff, March 2005
APPENDICES
A – Track Charts
B – Travel Time Estimate
C – Timetable Analysis
D – Ridership Estimate
E – Capital Cost Estimate
F – Operating & Maintenance Cost Estimate
