SVM MIS/DEIS - 5.1 Introduction

	SVM Project List SEPTA	Search
History Timeline Alternatives MIS/DEIS Bibliography

Major Investment Study / Draft Environmental Impact Statement
5. Affected Environment and Consequences
5.1 Introduction

5.1 INTRODUCTION

5.1.1 GENERAL

This chapter describes impacts to the natural and human-made environment and provides potential mitigation measures available to minimize or avoid the potential negative impacts. Presentations of impacts and potential mitigations are preceded in each section by discussion of the regulatory setting, methodology, and the affected environment. Exhibits in Volume II present corridor and station area maps as well as large tables of information that supplement text of this volume.

The proposed alignment links cities, towns, suburban and rural areas. It reveals vistas of exceptional natural beauty and crosses through one of our nation's most important sites - Valley Forge National Historic Park. It passes through some of the region's wealthiest communities, as well as some of the most needy areas. The project has potential to cause direct and indirect impacts - both positive and negative - to the natural resources, communities, residents, businesses, and cultural resources within the corridor. Most potential adverse impacts are minimized by use of active railroad corridors and readapting already built up areas for stations and parking.

5.1.2 ALTERNATIVES

As described in Section 2.4, all six build alternatives share the same alignment and station locations for the majority of the corridor. The only differences are that Alternatives 1D, 1E, and 2D include the addition to SEPTA's Route 100 light rail line (two miles between Hughes Park and King of Prussia) and Alternatives 1D, 1E, 5E, and 5ET have a different alignment than Alternatives 2D and 6, east of 52^nd Street in Philadelphia. Consequently, for many of the potential impact categories, there are no differences in impacts between the build alternatives (see also Section 5.1.5), with the exception of these two segments. The structure of the sections within this chapter reflect this. The impacts associated with the No-Build and Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternatives are also provided.

Track plan and profile drawings are provided in Volume III; build alternatives conceptual engineering descriptions are provided in the following sections: 3.1.1 - Alignment and Profile, 3.1.2 - Communication and Signals, 3.1.3 - Electrification, 3.1.4 - Stations, 3.1.5 - Right of Way; 3.1.6 - Construction Consideration, and 3.1.7 - Vehicles and Support Facilities; TSM Alternative conceptual engineering is provided in Section 3.2.

5.1.3 FOOTPRINT AND ALIGNMENT

The project footprint is the land area on the alignment that would be modified to accommodate the SVM project. The footprint includes only that portion of the cross section profile that will be modified to accommodate the SVM project. Where the cross section profile does not require modification, there is by definition, no footprint. Volume III provides stationing points to reference feature locations and impact areas along the alignment. Conceptual design assumptions are discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.

The footprint was developed in two iterations, both of which incorporated environmental factors. Fundamental to the project is the avoidance of floodplain encroachment-related impacts. Much of the existing alignment was built at or near the edge of the Schuylkill River floodplain. In addition, the wetland survey indicated that the majority of wetlands in the corridor are situated in the Schuylkill River floodplain. In an effort to avoid or minimize floodplain and wetland impacts, footprint widening was placed (to the maximum extent possible) on the side of the alignment away from the river. So as not to underestimate environmental impacts for modifying land area associated with any SVM build alternative, two SVM-specific tracks were added to the footprint to assess environmental impacts along the Norfolk Southern Harrisburg Main Line between Klapperthal Junction (CP Titus) and Norristown (40.5 miles), based on the following reasoning:

It was uncertain during the course of the MIS/DEIS whether Norfolk-Southern would allow the SVM commuter rail and modified light rail alternatives to share track with their freight trains. If tracks cannot be shared, these alternatives would require one main track throughout and passing siding tracks for approximately 50 percent of the distance paralleling the freight track.
Although the conceptual designs show passing track locations, final passing siding track locations will be subject to change during Preliminary Engineering and Final Design.

A 4.9 mile segment of the Norfolk Southern's freight line on the west side of Reading including an 0.6 mile segment connecting the freight line to Norfolk Southern's Harrisburg Line near Wyomissing (see Exhibit 3.1-2 Reading Area Freight Improvements [PDF]) have been added to the SVM project to facilitate SVM access to downtown Reading and Wyomissing. This trackage is referred to in this discussion as the Belt Line. No SVM service would be provided on these segments. The Belt Line is Norfolk Southern's primary alignment for through trains heading west, east, or north through the Reading area, allowing them to bypass downtown Reading. Frequent congestion on the Belt Line, due in large part to constrictions at five single-track sections, requires the availability of the Harrisburg Line through downtown Reading as a relief route to handle the overflow. Adding a second track at the five locations would not increase the number of trains normally using this track. Instead it would eliminate the need to occasionally route through freight trains over the proposed SVM alignment between Titus and downtown Reading, and reduce the need for routing through freight trains over the proposed SVM alignment between downtown Reading and Wyomissing. New footprint would be limited to the five locations where a second track would be added (see Exhibit 3.1-2 Reading Area Freight Improvements [PDF]). No footprint-related changes would be made to the remaining portions of this segment that are already double-track.

The project team decided, in consultation with and concurrence from the FTA and environmental regulatory agencies, that overestimating impacts at the concept design stage of the project, although not ideal, would be better than risking underestimating the impacts. Two locations along the Norfolk-Southern Harrisburg Line between Klapperthal Junction and Norristown (40.5 miles) use a footprint with only one SVM track to:

Avoid major direct 4(f) impacts for portions of the alignment through Valley Forge National Historic Park
Minimize impacts in the Central Business District of Downtown Pottstown

Several long segments have no or little footprint area, based on the capacity of the existing railroad right-of-way to accommodate SVM. These include:

Norristown to Center City (approx. 9 miles) along the existing two-track R6 right-of-way (a third track will be required from Norristown station to Ford Street to accommodate local freight traffic for Alternatives 5E, 5ET, and 6)
Cynwyd to Center City (approx. 7 miles) for Alternatives 2D and 6 and Cynwyd to 52^nd Street (2.1 miles) for Alternatives 1D, 1E, 5, and 5ET
Downtown Reading

The following segments have footprint areas based on creation of new rights-of-way or restoration of abandoned rights-of-way:

Port Kennedy to King of Prussia (2 miles)
King of Prussia to South Gulph Road (2.4 miles) on the extension of SEPTA's Route 100 Line
Connection of the upper and lower R6 lines (1800 ft) immediately west of Ivy Ridge
Phoenixville Junction to Cromby (2.4 miles)

The second iteration was performed following collection of affected environment data. Using information gathered on floodway boundaries, wetland identification, potential 4(f) sites, farmland, roadways, stream crossings, and residential properties, the footprint was modified to further reduce impacts in several places where such changes could be justified using available information. These changes included steeper angles of cut and fill slopes or use of retaining walls. This was only done when the existing alignment slopes were steeper than the 2:1 slope used in the initial footprint model or where a retaining wall would be appropriate. The steeper cut angles, which reduced the width of the footprint in several areas, resulted in avoiding or reducing impacts. This iteration was limited in extent to the more sensitive areas. It is assumed that other areas will be assessed during Preliminary Engineering and final design, at which time sufficiently detailed topographic maps, geotechnical data, and design operational plans will be available to further refine the footprint area, resulting in a reduction for some environmental and other project impacts.

For analysis of impacts that are not primarily a function of the footprint/alignment cross-section width, the term 'alignment' is used for the project's entire length.

5.1.4 REGULATORY SETTING

Federal, state, and local regulations are listed in each of the main sections of this chapter, as applicable to the affected environment. The DEIS elements within Chapter 5 were prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Permits and other regulatory requirements that will be required in later stages of SVM project are identified.

5.1.5 METHODOLOGY

The environmental elements addressed within the sections of this chapter were presented similar to other proven methodologies used in numerous EIS efforts applied to federally funded mass transit projects. Much of the project mapping of the affected environment and the impact analysis utilized a Geographic Information System (GIS). Public and private computerized databases were accessed to build the project's database. Unprocessed source data and primary data obtained specifically for this project were added to the database. GIS information was integrated with the computer-assisted drafting and design (CADD) software, used to develop the proposed alignment and footprint.

5.1.6 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The assembled GIS data, other databases, and field work, provided the necessary, pertinent information to identify and describe the affected environment presented in the main sections of this Chapter.

5.1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts, both negative and positive, were identified and documented by analyzing the database information in conjunction with the proposed conceptual footprint and station areas. The magnitude of impacts was evaluated for each alternative, as applicable for the affected environment. The upcoming Preliminary Engineering design process will further work to avoid or minimize effects where adverse consequences were identified. Construction impacts for the affected environment are consolidated within Section 5.17.

5.1.8 MITIGATION

Mitigation measures were researched from agency policies and regulations, previous projects, and standard practices and presented for each adverse consequence where impacts cannot be avoided. These measures will provide a framework that will be applied in preliminary engineering, final design, construction specifications, permit applications, and construction to mitigate adverse effects caused from the build alternative. These measures will be adopted and enforced, as applicable, by the Record of Decision process agreed upon by the federal and state agencies. Mitigation measures for construction impacts are consolidated within Section 5.17.