CONCEPT DEFINITION AND
PRELIMINARY STUDY
FOR
REGIONAL RAIL SERVICE BETWEEN
PHOENIXVILLE AND PHILADELPHIA
Prepared By:
Thomas E. Frawley Consulting, LLC (SBE)
Revised: March 8, 2019
CONCEPT DEFINITION AND PRELIMINARY STUDY
FOR
REGIONAL RAIL SERVICE BETWEEN
PHOENIXVILLE AND PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
1. INTRODUCTION
This Concept Definition and Preliminary Study for regional rail service (hereinafter 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 commuter rail service 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 implementing commuter rail service between Philadelphia and Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, and to define such service in sufficient detail to facilitate continued substantive discussions with the host railroads – Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) – and to support the actions necessary to secure capital and operating funds for its implementation. The scope of the Study was specified by the client to be preliminary in nature, recognizing that additional more detailed analyses and design engineering of necessary improvements would be required to be performed before the service could be implemented.
The study area through which the proposed new commuter rail service would operate 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 rail service, including existing conditions of the railroad infrastructure, operational feasibility of the service, 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 train operation 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 roadway traffic conditions in the Route 422 Corridor are congested and becoming more so. Continued urban and brownfields development in Phoenixville is expected to further increase the population of the Borough 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 primarily for work related travel between Phoenixville and Philadelphia.
The goal of the Task Force’s efforts is to re-establish passenger rail service between Phoenixville and Philadelphia, via Norristown, using existing rail infrastructure, using real estate tax value capture to fund capital costs and operating deficits. Although the proposed service may be implemented in phases, this Study focuses on service levels to be attained and then maintained for the foreseeable future.
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 Final Report
Prepared by SEPTA and BARTA
June 1998
Schuylkill Valley Metro MIS / DEIS
Prepared by SEPTA and FTA with cooperation of BARTA and PennDOT
September 2001
Schuylkill Valley Rail Assessment Study
Prepared for Norfolk Southern Corporation
Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff
March 2005
Schuylkill Valley Metro [Governor’s] Task Force Summary Report
Prepared for SEPTA and BARTA
Prepared by Urban Engineers
November 2007
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 SERVICE
This Section provides a summary-level description of the proposed commuter rail 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 service.
4.1 Service Route
The proposed regional rail 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 SERVICE ROUTE
Alternative commuter rail routes between Phoenixville and Philadelphia have been examined in previous studies, and include routing via NS between CP Norris and Amtrak’s 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 between Zoo Interlocking and 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 Station Locations
It remains to be determined where new stations would be located on NS between Phoenixville and Bridgeport, and which existing SEPTA stations between Norristown and Philadelphia might be served. Various operating and financial factors will affect such determinations. However, to perform a preliminary analysis of operational feasibility, a schedule must be developed, and station stops must be assumed to develop said schedule. Consequently, the following assumptions have been made regarding potential station locations in Phoenixville Borough and Schuylkill Township in Chester County, and in Upper Merion Township near King of Prussia in Montgomery County:
· Existing SEPTA stations to be served are assumed to be the Norristown Transportation Center, Temple University, Jefferson, Suburban and 30thStreet Stations.
· New stations to be served are assumed to be located in the Borough of Phoenixville, Schuylkill Township and King of Prussia.
These assumptions do not reflect a commitment to serve any community generally or location specifically, except for the community of Phoenixville and existing SEPTA stations in Center City Philadelphia. Potential locations for new stations and service to other existing SEPTA stations are addressed in greater detail in Section 7.1of this Report.
4.3 Operating Schedule
As indicated previously, the primary market to be served is commuters traveling between their homes in Phoenixville and their work locations in Philadelphia. Service is also envisioned to be operated mid-day and evenings on weekdays, and throughout most of the day on weekends. A total of 60 round trips per week has been assumed for purposes of this Study as the minimum adequate frequency for a seven-days-per-week schedule. For purposes of this Study, the total of 60 would be comprised of 10 round trips on weekdays (4 peak round trips and 3 each mid-day and evening round trips) and 5 round trips on weekend days. It is recognized that this assumption may change during subsequent analyses and development, potentially increasing the total number of round trips operated on a day or over the course of a week.
The preliminary schedule developed for analytical purposes during this Study is limited to peak periods on weekdays, based on potential capacity issues being likely to be limited to weekday peak periods. Accordingly, a preliminary peak period schedule for the proposed service was developed using a manual examination of SEPTA schedules, as described in Section 5.2of this Report, to verify its feasibility without significant changes in the existing SEPTA timetable, and is presented in Exhibit 4. This preliminary peak period schedule is limited to three round trips as it was concluded not to be feasible to operate four peak period trains without disrupting the existing SEPTA timetable.
EXHIBIT 4 – PRELIMINARY PEAK PERIOD SCHEDULE
A.M. PEAK PERIOD
|
PHX 1
|
PHX 3
|
PHX 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
|
PHX 2
|
PHX 4
|
PHX 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 recognized that if it is agreed among the major stakeholders that the proposed service should be examined in detail and possibly implemented, it would be imperative to perform computer modeling to develop a demonstrably viable operating schedule. Critical issues to be examined would include potential conflicts on SEPTA at CP 16thStreet Junction and on NS in the vicinity of Abrams Yard. Integration with existing SEPTA Norristown Line service would also be critical, and could include modification of the existing SEPTA schedule to optimize the combined, integrated service.
The character of the regional rail 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 service be operated by SEPTA.
4.5 Rolling Stock Service and Storage Facilities
Rolling stock servicing and routine maintenance and light repairs, 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 new service, and could be accomplished without modification or expansion of SEPTA’s existing facilities at Overbrook. Mid-day storage is assumed to take place at Overbrook and/or SEPTA’s Powellton Avenue Yard near 30thStreet Station in Philadelphia.
Overnight and weekend storage of rolling stock would take place at or near the Phoenixville end of the line. Three alternative locations have been identified, but 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.
Heavy repairs, if and when necessary, would be performed by third-parties under contract at off-line facilities.
5. OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY
The operational feasibility of the proposed commuter rail 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 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 bi-directionally signaled (Rule 261), in part as a result of signal system improvements observed being made by NS during the First Half of 2018.
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 include implementation of the wayside elements of I-ETMS (Interoperable Electronic Train Management System) 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 ACSES (Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System) 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
No wayside PTC equipment modifications or installations are necessary to enable operation of the proposed service; locomotives and cab cars for the proposed service are planned to carry on-board equipment for both I-ETMS and ACSES PTC systems, as has been implemented previously in other locations.
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 proposed 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 4.3
5.2.2 SEPTA Passenger Operations
Two capacity related issues are immediately apparent when considering operation of the proposed 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 the added Phoenixville trains; this is an issue both on the Norristown Line, where the added 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 Phoenixville 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 Phoenixville 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 in Section 5.1.2has now taken 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 recently implemented, would be able to accommodate the extremely limited number of Phoenixville trains. 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 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 Phoenixville service consisted of the following five steps, described here and presented in tables in Attachment D.
Step 1 – 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 Phoenixville service. 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
Norristown
The trip production locations used were identified to be within the potential catchment areas of proposed station locations for the Phoenixville 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
Step 2 – Modify for differences in proposed route– Three trip production locations are affected by differences between the routes proposed for Schuylkill Valley Metro and the proposed 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 a station site at or near 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 a station site at or near the Perkiomen Junction location. For this analysis, 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 Phoenixville 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 Phoenixville 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 via a spur built on the former Abrams Industrial Track. Access to the center of King of Prussia for the Phoenixville 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 Phoenixville service.
Step 3 – Modify for changes in service type and level– The Schuylkill Valley Metro Project preferred alternative was a transit style service, with frequent headways throughout the day including during the midday and evening and on weekends. This is in marked contrast to the 10 round trips per weekday and 5 round trips per weekend day assumed for the proposed Phoenixville service. To reflect the significant difference in service type and level, and based roughly on the ratios of peak to off-peak volume for other passenger rail services, the volumes were reduced to 25 percent of the values previously calculated for the Schuylkill Valley Metro.
Step 4 – 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.
Step 5 – 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 approximate station locations for the Phoenixville 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 Phoenixville 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 regional rail 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. Although no specific station stops have yet been finalized beyond one in Phoenixville, Temple University, and the three Center City Philadelphia locations, it has been assumed for this Study that the Phoenixville service would include a stop at SEPTA’s Norristown Transportation Center. 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 primary 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 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 proposed 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 Phoenixville 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 Phoenixville service trains would be limited to one NS track or use both, revolves around passengers crossing active freight tracks. Limiting the proposed 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 for the new service. 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 recently 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 Phoenixville service trains on any track, it would introduce new hazards. In that case, the need for passengers to cross active tracks would need 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 proposed service.
Another aspect of the question of which and how many NS tracks might be used to support the proposed Phoenixville service is the construction of high-level platforms (i.e., 48” above top of rail) to accomplish access in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). NS does not accept high-level platforms on its lines in Virginia that host commuter rail service and it is assumed to be unacceptable for the proposed Phoenixville service. Consequently, to allow high-level platforms to be separated from active NS freight tracks, sidings have been assumed to be built at new station locations.
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, with the aforementioned sidings.
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 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 site conditions must not inflict extraordinary constriction costs on new stations.
· Cost Effectiveness– Cost effectiveness is here defined to refer to the scale of the capital and maintenance costs for a particular 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 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
- Located on Track 1, which is a FATAL FLAW
|
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 Phoenixville service. At such time as the service might grow in popularity, and given their proximity to each other (approximately 500 feet apart) relocation from the Phoenix Industrial Complex 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, and multiple candidates were identified, and are shown in Exhibit 8. Unfortunately, all but one of the identified sites is affected by a fatal flaw, either being located adjacent to Track 1 rather than Track 2, or being located on a curve. One location, located in the vicinity of Milepost 24.1, is on tangent track and could be reasonably accessibly via Pawlings Road and Valley Forge Road (Route 23). Subject to such additional research, it has been assumed that a station would be located in the vicinity of Milepost 24.1.
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 near-term candidate station for the Phoenixville service and is not included further in this Study. However, at some future date when the NPS might have interest in a stop at the Valley Forge Station to serve visitors to the Historic Park, is could be examined as a potential in-fill station.
King of Prussia– Four candidate locations were considered 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 and adjacent to Track 2. 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
|
PROS
|
CONS
|
Former Port Kennedy Station Site (south side, adjacent to Track 2)
|
- Located on tangent track
- Good access to local road network (PA Route 23)
- Appears able to accommodate parking for forecasted ridership with new lot
|
- Requires NPS approval
- Road to site has been converted to trail use
|
Former Port Kennedy Station Site (North side, adjacent to Track 1)
|
- Located on tangent Track
- Good access to local road network (PA Route 23)
- Appears able to accommodate parking for forecasted ridership with new lot
|
- Requires NPS approval
- Road to site has been converted to trail use
- Status of roadway bridge over tracks is uncertain
- Location on Track 1 is a
FATAL FLAW
|
Bridge Construction Staging Site
|
- Located on tangent track
- Good access to local road network (Route 23)
- Appears able to accommodate parking for forecasted ridership with new lot
|
- Would require extension of local access road within US 422 right-of-way
|
Mancill Mill Site
|
- Located on tangent track
- Good roadway access via Mancill Mill Road
- Large site for parking
|
- Potential environmental remediation issues
|
Based on these considerations, this Study assumes a station to serve King of Prussia would be located at the Mancill Mill site, which was the location proposed in previous studies as part of an integrated Transit Oriented Development (TOD) project. 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.
Bridgeport– Potentially developable sites are located adjacent to Track 2 in Bridgeport and could be viable new station locations. Operational issues, such as proximity to the SEPTA bridge crossing the Schuylkill River and infrastructure complexities associated with providing a physical route to access both a potential station location and the river crossing would require detailed examination before being pursued further.
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 Phoenixville 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 could 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 Phoenixville 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.
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 limited Phoenixville service. 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 could provide shelter to passengers while waiting for morning departures
|
- Requires NS to reconfigure newly upgraded CP Phoenix with new crossover and associated signal modifications
- Slightly 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
|
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 Phoenixville 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 Phoenixville service.
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.
Construction of new sidings is proposed at new station locations on NS right of way to allow for dedicated passenger-only track adjacent to high-level platforms. Sidings are anticipated to be approximately 1,000 feet long and employ No.15 turnouts. Limited realignment of NS Track 2 is assumed to be necessary in the vicinity of these sidings.
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. The proposed new crossover at CP Kalb would be designed to meet or exceed current SEPTA engineering standards.
7.3.2 Signals– In light of the signal system improvements recently implemented by NS on their Harrisburg Main Line, signal system improvements anticipated to be necessary specifically to support the proposed Phoenixville service would consist of those associated with the new sidings at new stations, the modifications necessitated by the proposed a new crossover in Bridgeport at CP Norris, and possibly improvements 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 associated with the proposed new crossover at CP Kalb would be designed to meet or exceed current SEPTA engineering standards.
7.3.3 PTC – PTC is currently in operation on the entire rout for the proposed Phoenixville service. Because locomotives and cab cars for the proposed Phoenixville service would carry apparatus to interface with both the ACSES II PTC system on SERPTA and the I-ETMS system on NS, no wayside PTC improvements or modifications are anticipated to be needed.
8. PROPOSED ROLLING STOCK
The proposed Phoenixville 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. The Phoenixville service is proposed to employ new dual mode locomotives with refurbished single level cars operated in push-pull mode, and all purchased rather than leased. The new service is anticipated to require four “train consists” or “trainsets” each consisting of one locomotive, three trailer coaches and one cab car. One additional locomotive and two additional cars are planned to be procured as spares.
8.1 Dual Mode Locomotives Operated in Push-Pull Mode
Each of the proposed demonstration train consists would employ one new dual-mode locomotive that combines diesel and electric capabilities and would be operated in “push-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 at the Bombardier manufacturing facility in Exhibit 12.
EXHIBIT 12 – BOMBARDIER ALP-45DP LOCOMOTIVES AT KASSEL, GERMANY
The dual locomotives for the Phoenixville service would be built using the specifications for the NJT units, which operate on 12 kV 25 Hz and 25 kV 60 Hz current making them suitable for operation on SEPTA electrified lines.
8.2 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 a platform height of 48” above the top of rail, and must be interoperable with the dual mode locomotives. As commuter rail agencies in the Northeast Corridor replace older existing rolling stock, this older equipment may become available for purchase for the Phoenixville service. Although it is uncertain whether any specific existing rolling stock would be available at such time as the Phoenixville service is implemented, this Study assumes purchase of surplus Sumitomo / Nippon Sharyo trailer coaches and cab cars built in 1985-1993 and owned by Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC). These cars are of stainless steel construction and would benefit from minor refurbishment before being placed into service. Although some of these cars have lavatories, this is not a requirement for the Phoenixville service based on the travel times being comparable to those on current SEPTA Regional Rail trains. Twenty-one of these cars are currently on lease to the Long Island Railroad and anticipated to become available in 2020. This equipment type is illustrated in Exhibit 13.
EXHIBIT 13 – SUMITOMO / NIPPON SHARYO MARC COACHES
9.0 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
Implementation of the Phoenixville service 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:
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 using its Key system.
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 is presumed to 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 Phoenixville service;
· Insurance– SEPTA’s existing insurance program is anticipated to comply with NS requirements for passenger train operation over NS tracks; and,
· Fare Collection – SEPTA’s Key system could readily accommodate an integrated approach to fare collection for the Phoenixville service, requiring only validators be installed at new stations and limited software modifications to add the new station locations to the network of stations served.
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 Phoenixville service could have a unique identity within the Regional Rail system, at least initially, similar to the “Great Valley Flyer” express service operated on the Thorndale Line. SEPTA advertising would presumably be expanded to include a program to build the identity of the Phoenixville service and specifically promote it.
The launch of the Phoenixville service 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 Phoenixville 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 Phoenixville service.
10.1 Capital Cost Estimate
The quantities for the capital cost estimate summarized in Exhibit 14 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 14 – CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
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 15. Details of this estimate are provided in Appendix F.
EXHIBIT 15 – OPERATING & MAINTENANCE COST SUMMARY
SEPTA Train Operating Costs
|
$7,015,680
|
Norfolk Southern Track Access
|
1,784,800
|
Station Costs
|
76,500
|
Overnight & Weekend Storage Facility Costs
|
35,000
|
ANNUAL TOTAL
|
$8,911,980
|
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.
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 Phoenixville 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 $5,668,794. It is assumed, without specific analysis, that half this amount – or approximately $2,834,397 – 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 $6,077,583 during the first year and approximately $3,243,186 during the second and subsequent years.
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
