Major Investment Study / Draft Environmental Impact Statement   2. Development and Evaluation of Alternatives     2.3 Stage II Evaluation

2.3 STAGE II EVALUATION

2.3.1 PROJECT TEAM EVALUATION OF STAGE II ALTERNATIVES

Table 2.3-1 presents the completed Stage II Evaluation Matrix resulting from the evaluation of the Reduced Long List of Alternatives. The ratings for each alternative are presented by Stage II goals and criteria providing an easy comparison among alternatives. The following discussion provides the logic behind the ratings system. A complete discussion of the evaluation is available in Technical Report 2.2 - Stage II Evaluation.

STAGE II GOAL 1: Provide Safe, High-Quality, Multi-Modal Transportation Service to the Schuylkill Valley Corridor.

Increase in Travel Volume - This is a quantitative measure of the number of daily linked trips (using multi-modal transit services) in the forecast year anticipated from the implementation of an alternative based on the forecasted linked trips from the travel demand model. The alternatives were given a score ranging between 1 and 5 with the alternatives with the lowest linked trips receiving a one (1) and the highest a five (5).

Reduce Travel Time For System Users - This is a quantitative measure of the aggregate travel time savings in the forecast year anticipated from the implementation of an alternative. As a result of limitations in the DVRPC travel model, this measure could not be assessed at the time of this evaluation. It was recommended that DVRPC in conjunction with the travel demand consultants work toward a solution to develop a sub-module to aggregate regional travel times by mode. As a result this criterion could not be measured in the Stage II Evaluation, however, it was agreed for use in the Stage III Evaluation.

Ease Of Availability Of Intermodal Transfers - This was a qualitative rating to assess an alternative's ability to link with other transit services at various transfer nodes along the corridor. The alternatives follow similar alignments for the majority of the length of the corridor and also provide nearly identical connectivity to other transportation services. However, key differences were identified in the Center City Philadelphia portion of the study corridor. In determining the score, consideration was given to the alternative's accessibility to 30^th Street Station (Amtrak, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA Regional Rail, Subway Surface, and Market-Frankford Line), Suburban Station (Regional Rail, Subway Surface, Broad Street Subway, Market-Frankford Line) and Market East Station (Regional Rail, Market-Frankford Subway Elevated, Port Authority Transit Corporation [PATCO], Intercity Bus Terminal, New Jersey Transit Buses), as well as the alternative's ease of connecting with these services:

• A score of 5 was given if the alternative served 30^th Street Station, Suburban Station and Market East Station directly from locations in the SVM corridor.
• A score of 4 was given if the alternative served 30^th Street Station, Suburban Station and Market East Station directly from points in the SVM corridor, but not by both the East Falls or Cynwyd alignments in Philadelphia.
• A score of 3 was given, if the alternative provided service to 30^th Street Station, Suburban Station and Market East Station, but did so by requiring a transfer at Ivy Ridge.
• A score of 1 was given if no direct service to 30^th Street Station, Suburban Station or Market East Station existed and reaching these destinations required a transfer in Center City. Another factor that negatively affected alternatives within this criterion was the reverse service from East Falls through Ivy Ridge to access Center City. This service makes access to these intermodal facilities more difficult than the existing R6 service.

Increased Interaction Between The Various Urbanized Areas And The Surrounding Communities - This is a qualitative rating to assess the extent to which an alternative increases opportunities for travel between the older urban communities and the newer suburban communities located within the corridor. This measure primarily applied to the portions of the corridor outside of Philadelphia and was primarily based on the service levels of each alternative. Since service levels were nearly uniform for all light rail alternatives at 15-minute peak headways and for all commuter rail alternatives at 30-minute peak headways, scores of 3 and 4 were assigned. Considering that each of these alternatives provided a significant improvement over the level of transit service currently available in the corridor, none of the alternatives received low ratings of 1 or 2. In addition, none of the alternatives received the highest rating of 5 since higher service levels would be desirable but are not realistic based on the resources needed to achieve these levels within an area the size of the SVM corridor.

Increase The Interaction Between Center City Philadelphia And The Suburban Communities Along The Corridor - This is a qualitative rating to assess the extent to which an alternative increases opportunities for travel between Center City Philadelphia and the suburban communities within the corridor. This criterion was primarily based on service levels with consideration given to both headways and the number of actual service lines within each alternative. A closer look at the alternatives revealed three trends that were used to evaluate the alternatives. Several alternatives provided frequent headways with a significant penetration of operating lines into the SVM corridor as far out as King of Prussia. The remaining alternatives, which received lower ratings, provided less frequent headways, and a transfer required to access King of Prussia.

Increase Mixed-Use Development Around Transportation Nodes - This is a qualitative rating to assess the potential of an alternative to facilitate mixed-use development around various transportation nodes along the corridor. While the physical alignments and county planning and zoning codes are the same for the different alternatives, the potential for mixed use development was believed to be primarily dependent on the level of station activity as measured by passenger boardings. None of the alternatives were considered to be excellent or unsatisfactory, therefore scores of 5 and 1 were not considered for any of the alternatives. As a result the rankings were completed based on scores of 2, 3 and 4.

Increase Mobility Options for Low-Income Households, Including Opportunities for Reverse Commuting - This is a qualitative rating to assess the potential of an alternative to provide increased mobility options, including opportunities for reverse commuting for low-income households who live within one-half mile of an alternative's various access points. This measure is dependent on the ability for low income households to access the alternative's service, as well as the alternative's potential to serve reverse commuting destinations. The Route 100 extension was identified as a plus since it provided a key linkage between the 69^th Street intermodal terminal and King of Prussia. Additionally, direct service from the Cynwyd Line and East Falls Line to King of Prussia and other suburban job centers along the corridor was considered as a benefit. No scores lower than three were assigned, as all alternatives provided some improvement for low-income household mobility.

STAGE II GOAL 3: Preserve Quality of the Environment Along the Schuylkill Valley Corridor.

Decrease the Loss of Farmland and Open Space - This is a qualitative rating to assess the extent to which an alternative requires the taking of farmland and/or open space for its construction, as well as the extent to which an alternative's construction is likely to discourage sprawl development. Each of the alternatives in the Long List follows the same basic route and has identical station locations in areas where the consumption of farmland and open space is an issue pertaining to land use. The effect that the SVM alternatives will have on slowing the loss of farmland and open space depends primarily on factors outside of the control of the project. County planning efforts and resulting zoning regulations as well as the cooperation of townships with proposed county plans are of vital importance to have a positive effect for this measure. Whether commuter rail or light rail, the difference in the alternative's ability to influence the use of farmland and open space was considered to be negligible unless planning and zoning regulations are significantly adjusted. As a result, all alternatives received the same score of 3, as all could potentially be a component for the stimulus of such improvements.

Improve Air Quality Along The Corridor - This is a quantitative rating to assess the ability of an alternative to contribute to the improvement of air quality along the corridor by increasing passenger (rail) miles traveled. This measure is directly based on the relative increase in Passenger Miles Traveled (PMT) as derived from the DVRPC travel demand model output. Ratings ranged from 5 to 1.

Increase Access To Natural and Recreational Resources - This is a qualitative rating to assess whether an alternative provides increased opportunities for accessing various environmental resources (such as, nature trails, parks, and bicycle paths) within the boundaries of the corridor. With the physical alignments and access to these resources being identical for the majority of the corridor, the only variation among the alternatives is access to the resources provided at Fairmount Park in Philadelphia. Access to this major natural and recreational resource is best served by the alternatives that approach Center City from the Girard Avenue Bridge over the Schuylkill River. Ratings of 4 and 3 were assigned.

STAGE II GOAL 4: Invest and Deploy Resources Efficiently and Cost-Effectively.

Total Transportation Capital Investment - This is a quantitative measure based on the order of magnitude capital cost of each alternative. This score is directly based on the capital cost estimation for each alternative. The alternatives were given a score ranging between 1 and 5 with the alternatives having the highest capital costs receiving a one (1) and the lowest a five (5).

Operating Costs - This is a quantitative measure, based on the total annual operating and maintenance (O&M) cost of an alternative. Transit related O&M costs are based on labor, fringe and facility maintenance unit costs from the O&M cost methodology report for operations, vehicle maintenance, non-vehicle maintenance and administration. The scores given are directly based on the estimated annual O&M cost for each alternative. The alternatives were given a score ranging between 1 and 5 with the alternatives with the highest O&M costs receiving a one (1) and the lowest a five (5).

Passenger Miles Per Total Annualized Cost - This is a quantitative measure that is calculated by dividing the annual passenger miles by the annualized costs for an alternative. Annual passenger miles are based on the actual forecast station-to-station ridership and the inter-station distances. Annualized costs include annualized capital costs plus the annual O&M costs for each alternative. The alternatives were given a score ranging between 1 and 5 with the alternatives with the lowest Passenger Mile/Annualized Cost receiving a one (1) and the highest a five (5).

2.3.2 SEPTA/BARTA WORK SESSION EVALUATION

2.3.3 PROJECT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK SESSION EVALUATION

2.3.4 POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE WORK SESSION/APPROVAL

2.3.5 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SHORT LIST

SVMetro.com Copyright © 2006 Lucius Kwok