|
|
SVM Project List SEPTA | |
| History Timeline Alternatives MIS/DEIS Bibliography | ||
4.1 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IMPACTSExisting public transportation routes in the corridor are shown in Table 4.1-1. Public transportation impacts of each alternative are measured by their effect on transit levels of service and ridership. The level of service measures include geographic coverage, hours and frequency of service, changes in transit travel times, number of transfers required, system reliability and safety, and comfort. The ridership measures include total and new transit ridership, ridership by mode, ridership by alternative and daily station volumes. 4.1.1 LEVELS OF SERVICEThe effectiveness of each alternative in improving the level of transit service in the SVM corridor is influenced by the geographic coverage that each alternative provides, the availability and frequency of service operated in the corridor, the time it takes to travel by transit from one destination to another, the number of transfers required to complete the trip, and the reliability and degree of comfort of the service. The result of the improved level of service should be an increase in transit ridership. By measuring the ridership changes, the effectiveness of the alternatives in improving the level of service in the corridor can be determined.4.1.2 RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONSThis section provides a brief review of the service planning assumptions, the travel demand forecasting methodology employed, the patronage impacts on the overall transit system, and travel in the region for the proposed project.4.1.2.1 FORECASTING METHODOLOGYThe use of current and regionally approved forecasting tools is encouraged in FTA's Section 5309 New Starts criteria. Patronage forecasting for the MIS/DEIS was simulated by using the DVRPC Travel Simulation Model, Berks County Travel Model, and the Interregional Model (a separate interregional model has been developed for this submarket). The travel market in the Schuylkill Valley corridor is broken down in three market components:
4.1.2.2 IMPACTS ON THE TRANSIT SYSTEMThe impact of each build alternative on the regional transit system can be measured from travel demand modeling as discussed below:Linked Trips (see Table 4.1-2) shows year 2020 average weekday linked person trips produced by each of the three models. For each alternative, linked transit trips are reported by three market components discussed in Section 4.1.2.1. The transit person trips output by the modal choice model are linked trips. A linked trip is defined as a trip from the origin zone to the destination zone, regardless of the number of modes used. Linked trips are a primary measure of system effectiveness by FTA. Unlinked Boardings by Route - The boarding summary for each component of the various alternatives is summed to report transit year 2020 average weekday boardings for each alternative in Table 4.1-3. Schuylkill Valley Metro boardings (or unlinked trips) and other rail service in the corridor are summarized by route. Boardings for corridor buses are also presented. Unlinked Boardings by Station - Boardings at the station level are summarized as one-half the sum of boardings and alightings and are rounded to the nearest ten (i.e. a "zero" may indicate less than five riders). Table 4.1-4 shows year 2020 average weekday boardings for each alternative. Station Parking Demand - Parking demand is summarized in a similar manner in Table 4.1-5 showing year 2020 average weekday number of spaces. The forecasts were constrained by the parking supply at each station and the parking was estimated using drop-off and auto occupancy data from others. The parking demand was calculated by adjusting work trip drive access volumes for drop-offs and shared ride, as well as the turnover in parking spaces in the off-peak periods. If this adjusted parking demand exceeded available spaces at a station, then the auto access links for that station were penalized with lower approach speeds until demand "matched" available parking capacity. Transit Line Loads - Another method of displaying the data is the loadings on each of the proposed services along the length of the line. These values are shown in two ways in Exhibit 4.1-1 Average Weekday Line Loads [PDF] and Exhibit 4.1-2 Average Peak Hour [PDF]. The latter is summarized for the AM peak hour and peak direction only and the former shows total daily travel. Impacts on other Transit Services - Technical Report 2.3.2 - Short List Service Plan describes in detail changes to other transit routes that would complement each of the short-listed alternatives. These include new and extended bus routes, increased frequencies on some bus routes, and elimination of services duplicated by the SVM build alternatives. The changes are structured to complement the SVM service, and no location would lose local bus service. Under all alternatives, existing Regional Rail service to the Elm and Main Street stations in Norristown would be discontinued. Current users of those stations will have the option of using the nearby Norristown Station or, for those who drive into Norristown from points further west in the corridor to park and ride, new SVM stations that would reduce the length of the drive portion of their trip. In 2020 approximately 500 daily trips would be affected. Of those, about 150 would be drivers who could park at Norristown Station or at one of the newer outlying stations in the corridor. Of the approximately 350 who would walk or ride buses to those stations, bus routes 93, 97, and 131 would be available to provide service to the Norristown Station.
| |||||
