Final Report March 2010 Submitted by: SYSTRA Consulting, Inc. In Association with: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. AECOM Central New Jersey/Raritan Valley Transit Study – Pennsylvania Component Final Report     TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1. Purpose and Need.................................................................................................................................1 1.1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................1 1.2. Study Area...................................................................................................................................1 1.3. Existing Study Area Transit Services and Park-and-Rides.........................................................3 1.4. Study Goals and Objectives.........................................................................................................4 1.5. Planning Context.........................................................................................................................6 2. Public Involvement..............................................................................................................................7 3. Alternatives Considered.......................................................................................................................8 3.1. Long List Alternatives Development and Screening Process......................................................8 3.2. Future No Build Condition..........................................................................................................9 3.2.1. Commuter Rail Service.......................................................................................................9 3.2.2. Commuter Bus Service.....................................................................................................10 3.3. Shortlisted Bus Alternatives......................................................................................................10 3.3.1. Overview...........................................................................................................................10 3.3.2. Bus Service Plans and Equipment....................................................................................10 3.3.3. Bus Routes........................................................................................................................11 3.4. Shortlisted Rail Alternative.......................................................................................................14 3.4.1. Overview...........................................................................................................................14 3.4.2. Rail Service Plan and Equipment.....................................................................................14 3.4.3. Rail Alignment/Right-of-Way..........................................................................................15 3.4.4. Proposed Rail Stations......................................................................................................22 3.4.5. Rail Maintenance Facility/Yard........................................................................................23 4. Environmental Analysis.....................................................................................................................27 4.1. Regulatory Context....................................................................................................................27 4.2. Environmental Screening Methodology....................................................................................28 4.3. Environmental Analysis Results................................................................................................28 5. Ridership Forecasts............................................................................................................................30 5.1. Methodology..............................................................................................................................30 5.2. Assumptions..............................................................................................................................30 5.2.1. Demographics.......................................................................................................................30 5.2.2. Roadway and Existing Transit Network...............................................................................31 5.2.3. Costs......................................................................................................................................31 5.2.4. Off-model Ridership (for Rail Alternative Only)..................................................................31 5.3. Ridership Results.......................................................................................................................32 5.3.1. Express Bus to New York Service........................................................................................32 5.3.2. Express Bus to Bridgewater Service.....................................................................................33 5.3.3. Allentown to Newark/New York Commuter Rail Service....................................................33 6. Cost Estimation..................................................................................................................................37 6.1. Operating and Maintenance Costs and Revenue.......................................................................37 6.2. Farebox Recovery......................................................................................................................37 6.3. Capital Costs..............................................................................................................................38 7. Findings/Next Steps...........................................................................................................................40 March 2010 Central New Jersey/Raritan Valley Transit Study – Pennsylvania Component Final Report     LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Existing Lehigh Valley Bus Park-and-Ride Utilization..................................................................3 Table 2: Pennsylvania Parkers at New Jersey Park-and-Ride Facilities.......................................................4 Table 3: Study Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................6 Table 4: Long List to Short List Alternative Screening Results...................................................................8 Table 5: Short List Alternatives....................................................................................................................9 Table 6: Bus Alternatives Travel Times.....................................................................................................11 Table 7: Forecasted Rail Travel Times.......................................................................................................15 Table 8: Proposed Passenger Track Alignment Summary..........................................................................18 Table 9: Environmental Analysis Summary...............................................................................................29 Table 10: Average Daily Year 2030 Express Bus to New York Ridership................................................32 Table 11: Average Daily Year 2030 Express Bridgewater Bus Ridership.................................................33 Table 12: Forecasted Year 2030 Average Daily Rail Ridership................................................................34 Table 13: Source of New Rail System Trips (Year 2030).........................................................................35 Table 14: Origins of Rail Riders by Station...............................................................................................36 Table 15: Destination of Lehigh Valley Rail Riders..................................................................................36 Table 16: Forecasted Year 2030 Average Daily Riders by Boarding Station for Raritan Station Shuttles37 Table 17: Annual O&M Cost Summary – Rail Alternative........................................................................38 Table 18: Farebox Recovery – Extension of Service from Phillipsburg, NJ to Allentown, PA.................38 Table 19: Capital Cost Summary – Rail.....................................................................................................39 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Pennsylvania Component Study Area with Existing Commuter Bus Facilities and Rail Routes.2 Figure 2: NJ TRANSIT’s Raritan Valley Line as Modified for the Pennsylvania Component Study.........5 Figure 3: Alternative Development/Meeting Flowchart...............................................................................7 Figure 4: Proposed Express Bus to New York Service Routing.................................................................12 Figure 5: Proposed Express Bus to Bridgewater Service Routing..............................................................13 Figure 6: Proposed Commuter Rail Extension to Allentown Alignment...................................................20 Figure 7: Proposed Commuter Rail Extension to Allentown Schematic....................................................21 Figure 8: Proposed Easton Station..............................................................................................................24 Figure 9: Proposed Bethlehem Station........................................................................................................25 Figure 10: Proposed Allentown Station......................................................................................................26 APPENDICES Appendix A - Alternatives Definition and Shortlisting Memo (December 2009) Appendix B - Engineering Drawings Appendix C – Environmental Maps Appendix D –Ridership Appendix E – Rail Alternative Capital & O&M Cost Estimates Appendix F – Public Involvement Materials March 2010 Central New Jersey/Raritan Valley Transit Study – Pennsylvania Component Final Report – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SSTTUUDDYY PPUURRPPOOSSEE The Central NJ/Raritan Valley Transit Study (CNJ/RV) - Pennsylvania Component is an extension of the NJ TRANSIT CNJ/RV Transit Study, which assessed commuter bus and commuter rail transit improvement alternatives along Interstate 78 (I-78) in New Jersey. The purpose of the Pennsylvania Component Study was to build upon the New Jersey portion of the study (New Jersey Component Study) by identifying and assessing options to improve rail and bus services along the Route 22 and I-78 corridors in the Lehigh Valley and the northern New Jersey/New York Urban Core (Jersey City, Newark, Midtown Manhattan and Lower Manhattan). The rail and bus options were developed to provide local decision makers information to decide whether they warrant more detailed study and development. At this time no funding has been identified to pursue further planning work. The Pennsylvania Study Area, shown below, is comprised of Northampton and Lehigh Counties, primarily covering the three urban centers (Easton, Bethlehem, and Allentown), the rail alignments through the Lehigh Valley that could connect to the NJ TRANSIT Raritan Valley Line (RVL) commuter rail service, and roadways that connect to I-78. Pennsylvania Study Area Map PPUUBBLLIICC IINNVVOOLLVVEEMMEENNTT The goal of the public involvement process was to engage a diverse group of public and agency participants to solicit relevant input and provide timely information throughout the The PA Component Study is study. The public involvement process included regular sponsored by: meetings with agency officials and municipal workshops with • County of Lehigh the various stakeholders to explain and present the process • County of Northampton and findings of the study, gain public input in the planning • Lehigh Valley Economic process, as well as inform the public of study progress. The Development Corporation stakeholder groups are represented by two committees organized for the Pennsylvania Component Study. The Community Liaison Committee (CLC) represents municipalities and local interest groups such as higher education facilities March 2010 i Central New Jersey/Raritan Valley Transit Study – Pennsylvania Component Final Report – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and economic development organizations. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is made up of county, regional and state-level transportation and planning agencies. The CLC met in July 2009 and March 2010. The TAC convened in August 2009, November 2009 and March 2010. PPRROOJJEECCTT GGOOAALLSS AANNDD OOBBJJEECCTTIIVVEESS The goals and objectives for the Pennsylvania Component of the study are presented in the following table. They were established at the outset of the study in conjunction with stakeholder groups and played a key role in the alternative development process. Of particular importance is the goal to revitalize urban centers through improved transit service. TRANSPORTATION • Improve mobility within the study area between the Lehigh Valley and the North Jersey/New York areas • Reduce the growth of peak period traffic congestion along I-78 and other key roadways • Improve multi-modal regional transportation and promote connectivity of transportation systems, including walking, biking, buses, auto, trails and freight rail • Improve the image of public transit as an attractive, safe and viable form of transportation through the study area • Increase transit ridership • Expand work commute options for residents • Connect important work destinations and major employers with new transit services and connections to transit routes and systems • Promote and support non-work related transit trips • Maintain and/or reduce travel time • Improve the connectivity of existing transit services in the region and make better use of existing transportation facilities • Provide the ability for phased implementation, as well as projects with short-term implementation ENVIRONMENTAL/COMMUNITY • Minimize environmental impacts to the preexisting, natural and community environment • Implement transit improvements so that community impacts are minimized • Reduce the region’s dependence on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions • Encourage dense development and redevelopment in the three Lehigh Valley urban cores – Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton • Encourage more transit-friendly communities with mixed-use pedestrian-friendly transit station areas, where desired • Attract and retain young professionals to live and work in the Lehigh Valley; and increase residential density in the urban cores • Incentivize good land use planning and urban revitalization through the location of recommended facilities FINANCIAL • Develop cost effective alternatives • Increase overall transit revenues • Invest financial resources efficiently and effectively • Implement financially sustainable transit improvements AALLTTEERRNNAATTIIVVEESS DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT The Pennsylvania Component Long List of Alternatives was developed Short List Alternatives: based on data collected at the outset of this study, the results of the New Jersey Component study as they relate to the Lehigh Valley, and • Commuter Rail Extension to information gathered during the Pennsylvania Component Study’s first set Allentown • Express Bus to New York of CLC workshops in July 2009 and first TAC meeting in August 2009. • Express Bus to Bridgewater The three rail and five bus Long List alternatives were conceptually developed and a Short List (one rail & two bus alternatives) was approved by the TAC in November 2009. The Short List alternatives were analyzed in more detail (ridership, environmental, engineering, operations, and cost) and the results of this analysis were reviewed with the TAC and CLC in March 2010. March 2010 ii Central New Jersey/Raritan Valley Transit Study – Pennsylvania Component Final Report – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DDEESSCCRRIIPPTTIIOONN AANNDD FFIINNDDIINNGGSS OOFF SSHHOORRTT LLIISSTT AALLTTEERRNNAATTIIVVEESS CCOOMMMMUUTTEERR RRAAIILL EEXXTTEENNSSIIOONN TTOO AALLLLEENNTTOOWWNN BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD Commuter rail service is provided by NJ TRANSIT on the Raritan Valley Line (RVL) between High Bridge, NJ and Newark, NJ. At Newark, riders transfer for service to Midtown and Lower Manhattan, Jersey City and Hoboken (Urban Core). In the future, after the opening of the Access to the Region’s Core Project, which is a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River and new rail station at 34th Street between 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, some RVL trains are planned to operate directly to Midtown Manhattan. The predecessor NJ Component Study developed alternatives to extend RVL service 20 miles west from High Bridge to Phillipsburg, NJ with stops in Hampton and Bethlehem/Bloomsbury, NJ. Rail station bus shuttles are available today from some intermediate stations along the RVL, and additional bus shuttles have been proposed in the NJ Component study, as a “last mile” strategy between rail stations and work sites. AALLTTEERRNNAATTIIVVEE DDEESSCCRRIIPPTTIIOONN This alternative would extend RVL service 17 miles from Phillipsburg, NJ to Allentown, PA along the south side of the Lehigh River. The proposed route would use the Norfolk Southern Lehigh Line right-of-way in Easton/Bethlehem and the RJ Corman right-of-way (Lehighton Industrial Track) in Allentown. New dedicated passenger track and passing sidings would be provided, with shared freight tracks in some locations. With any extension of rail service into PA, an operating THREE PROPOSED PENNSYLVANIA agreement between a Commonwealth of PA agency and STATIONS NJ TRANSIT would be required, to address shared costs, • Easton liabilities and other issues. If at some point in the • Bethlehem future RVL rail service in NJ is extended to a point east • Allentown of Phillipsburg (Hampton or Bloomsbury/Bethlehem), the costs for the PA Component would need to consider the costs within NJ of reaching Phillipsburg. SSTTAATTIIOONNSS AANNDD YYAARRDD Proposed stations have been located in consultation with local officials, and within right-of-way constraints. All stations would be fully accessible to persons with disabilities and would serve existing and planned walk-up markets and park- and-ride customers. March 2010 iii Central New Jersey/Raritan Valley Transit Study – Pennsylvania Component Final Report – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Easton Station is located in the Easton Central Business District (CBD), on the south side of the Lehigh River, just north of West Canal Street, and west of the intersection of Third Street and Smith Avenue. Parking would be available at the planned new Easton Intermodal Terminal 900 feet away. This facility is being sponsored by the City of Easton outside of this study. LANTA N, P and R bus lines would serve this station. Additional LANTA routes would be available at the Easton Intermodal Terminal. The proposed Bethlehem Station is located within the BethWorks development site, approximately 1,500 feet west of the Sands Casino. Parking would be available at the planned BethWorks Multimodal Transit Facility, 1,500 feet away. This facility is sponsored by the City of Bethlehem outside of this study. LANTA F and “The Loop” bus lines would serve this station. Additional LANTA routes would be available at the Multimodal Transit Facility. The proposed Allentown Station is located between Hamilton Street and Union Street, with access from 3rd Street. Parking would be available at the Allentown Bus Terminal or at a new parking facility at the station site. LANTA A and E bus lines would serve this station. Parking at Allentown and Bethlehem is assumed to be free and the parking rate at Easton is assumed to be $2 per day. The proposed Yard/Maintenance Facility to service and store trainsets overnight is located near the Harris Rebar site in Salisbury Township, west of the Hill-to-Hill Bridge. Space is available at this site for overnight storage, inspection, fueling, cleaning and running repair for eleven trainsets. SSEERRVVIICCEE Future Year (2030) Travel Time to All RVL trains proposed to operate to High Bridge in 2030 would be New York extended to Allentown. The service plan includes: 155 minutes from Allentown • 8 AM peak period inbound trains (6-10 AM arrival in 144 minutes from Bethlehem Newark/New York) with limited reverse peak service 128 minutes from Easton • 8 PM peak period outbound trains (4-8 PM departure from Newark/New York) with limited reverse peak service • Hourly off-peak and evening service in each direction • Limited weekend service RRIIDDEERRSSHHIIPP The three new PA stations would generate 800 daily riders or boardings (1,600 one-way trips) in 2030, which includes 110 intra-valley riders (or 220 trips). PA daily passenger boardings range from 220-350 per station. The assumed distance-based fares were based on an extension of the January 2010 NJ TRANSIT RVL rail fare structure. Fares to New York were assumed to be $13.50 one-way and $378 monthly from Philipsburg and Easton, $14.00 one- way and $392 monthly from Bethlehem and $14.50 one-way and $406 monthly from Allentown. These fares are assumed to rise with inflation. At the time of service implementation, the fares will reflect the then-current fare structure. Since commuter rail is considered a factor in land use planning, transit-oriented development goals being pursued by each station host city were considered in the ridership estimation. Also, university travel and special generators such as festivals and museum trips were considered. March 2010 iv Central New Jersey/Raritan Valley Transit Study – Pennsylvania Component Final Report – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2030 Average Daily Rail Ridership Riders One-Way Rail Station (Boardings) Drive Access Parking Trips Allentown 230 170 140 460 Proposed Bethlehem 220 100 80 440 Pennsylvania Stations Easton 350 280 230 700 TOTAL PA 800 550 450 1,600 Phillipsburg 70 60 50 140 CNJ-RVL Bloomsbury/ New Jersey Bethlehem 185 185 150 370 Component Stations Hampton 145 145 115 290 TOTAL NJ 400 390 315 800 TOTAL 1,200 940 765 2,400 New Rail Trips 2,300 Diversions to Rail From Exiting Rail 110 From Bus 840 From Auto 1,445 From Other 5 NNOOTTEE:: TTHHIISS TTAABBLLEE RREEFFLLEECCTTSS AAVVEERRAAGGEE WWEEEEKKDDAAYY RRIIDDEERRSSHHIIPP.. WWEEEEKKEENNDD AANNDD SSPPEECCIIAALL EEVVEENNTT RRIIDDEERRSSHHIIPP IISS NNOOTT IINNCCLLUUDDEEDD.. EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL IIMMPPAACCTTSS Potential impacts are summarized below. In some cases construction and permanent impacts cannot be avoided and permitting with mitigation strategies would be required. ALIGNMENT • Floodplains - Small areas of 100-year floodplain are present in several locations adjacent to the right-of-way and within the right-of-way in Easton, Glendon and Lower Saucon, Bethlehem, and Fountain Hill. The right-of-way (ROW) is located within the 100-year floodplain in Allentown. • Wetlands - Rail ROW crosses wetlands and a creek on the approach to the proposed Allentown Station at Banana Joe’s site (former passenger station). • Historic - Rail ROW is adjacent to the historic Lehigh Canal and is part of the Lehigh River Greenway. • Parklands – The Hugh Moore Historical Park is located adjacent to the ROW on the north side. • Ecology - The ROW is located within the Lehigh Slopes Natural Area in Williams and the Steel City Slopes Natural Area in Bethlehem. The locally-significant Steel City Slopes are located on a north-facing slope above the Lehigh River in Lower Saucon Township and supports a diverse herb and fern habitat. Proposed work would be contained within already disturbed areas. STATIONS • Easton Station - Small area of 100-year floodplain located within ROW on the north side of the alignment. • Bethlehem Station - Located on former industrial property. Any hazardous materials impacts from the Bethlehem Steel operation would be mitigated by the BethWorks development. • Allentown Station - Located entirely within 100-year floodplain. March 2010 v Central New Jersey/Raritan Valley Transit Study – Pennsylvania Component Final Report – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY YARD • Located entirely within the Lehigh Uplands Park Preserve and the Lehigh Mountain Seeps Natural Area; however, all work would be performed within already disturbed areas. PPRROOPPEERRTTYY NNEEEEDDSS The proposed alignment would use private railroad right-of-way and the railroad owner would be compensated. Property acquisition would be required at the proposed Allentown station. Two parcels north of Hamilton Street would be needed for track, platform and parking. A small acquisition would also be needed for the yard site. IINNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALL Norfolk Southern Railway is the owner of most of the rights-of-way proposed for passenger rail service. While Norfolk Southern is represented on the study’s Technical Advisory Committee; it has not reviewed or approved any of the alternatives that make use of their rights-of-way or facilities, as is their general policy with preliminary studies. FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL Costs shown are for extending rail service between Phillipsburg, NJ and Allentown, PA. Capital and operating funding have not been identified for this alternative. At this time NJ TRANSIT has made no commitment to extend rail service beyond the existing terminus in High Bridge, NJ. When a decision is made to advance rail service to Allentown, the PA Component costs would need to consider the costs within NJ for reaching the terminus of the existing service. Costs 2010 $ Capital Cost $650-710 million Annual Operating Cost $14.9 million Annual Revenue $3.3 million Farebox Recovery (a) 22% (a) Percentage of operating costs covered by revenues CCOOMMMMUUTTEERR RRAAIILL EEXXTTEENNSSIIOONN TTOO AALLLLEENNTTOOWWNN -- FFIINNDDIINNGGSS The total estimated capital cost project would be $658.9 million (2010$), or $39 million per route mile for the 16.94 miles from Phillipsburg, NJ to Allentown, PA. Commuter rail projects being considered for federal funding have capital costs that are under $20 million per route mile. The rail alternative’s high capital cost and low farebox recovery will be a challenge in the competitive environment for Federal and local funding. Economies such as potentially sharing the Pennsylvania yard costs (estimated to be $87.4 million) with New Jersey could be explored in the future to bring the costs of the project down to a more competitive level. Should this project qualify for federal capital assistance, such assistance would only cover a portion of the project costs and local matching funds would be required. The estimated farebox recovery of 22% is based on forecasted passenger fare revenues of $3.3 million and operating costs of $14.9 million. A subsidy of $11.6 million would have to be provided (all in 2010$). A source for this ongoing subsidy has not bee identified. The farebox recovery compares unfavorably with the FY09 farebox recovery of 55% on the overall NJ TRANSIT commuter rail system. March 2010 vi Central New Jersey/Raritan Valley Transit Study – Pennsylvania Component Final Report – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EEXXPPRREESSSS BBUUSS TTOO NNEEWW YYOORRKK BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD Bus service is provided today from eight locations in Lehigh and Northampton Counties to New York City via Interstate 78 (I-78). Service is provided to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, Lower Manhattan with additional service to JFK International Airport and Jersey City. Much of this service makes additional stops along I-78 in New Jersey. Existing non-stop express service from the Lehigh Valley to New York originates at highway park-and-ride locations. The predecessor NJ Component Study developed express service from two new park-and-rides in New Jersey. The results of that study indicated a demand for some additional service originating in Pennsylvania. According to the 2000 Census, nearly 1,100 people per day leave Lehigh and Northampton Counties bound for job sites in New York City, a number which has grown with the population growth in the Lehigh Valley. Routes that serve downtown residents were developed to meet the Study’s goals for strengthening redevelopment of downtown neighborhoods. AALLTTEERRNNAATTIIVVEE DDEESSCCRRIIPPTTIIOONN This alternative would provide three new express, non-stop bus routes from Easton, South Bethlehem and Allentown Central Business Districts. Service would depart from each of these facilities, and proceed non-stop to the Port Authority Bus Terminal (PABT) in Midtown Manhattan. Buses would access I-78 by the most direct possible route, and then proceed to NY via the Lincoln Tunnel Express Bus Lane. This service would take advantage of proposed bus-on-shoulder operation along the most congested sections I-78 in NJ, as described in the NJ Component Study. The proposed bus-on- shoulder operation would benefit bus travel times by up to 9 minutes in the AM peak period. This service would be operated by a private operator. SSEERRVVIICCEE CCOONNCCEEPPTTSS These services would provide direct, non-stop express bus service from the THREE PROPOSED SERVICES three core cities of the Lehigh Valley to the PABT in Midtown Manhattan. • Easton Service would originate at existing, or planned new bus facilities, and would be in addition to any currently operated service. • South Bethlehem The Easton Service would start at the planned new Easton Intermodal • Allentown Center, located at the Southwest corner of Ferry Street and South 3rd Street. This planned intermodal facility would serve as the main terminal for intercity, commuter and local buses in downtown Easton. Parking would be available at this facility at a cost of $2/day. LANTA routes N, P and R would serve the station site today, with routes C, E and 5 operating nearby. It is assumed that any nearby local bus service March 2010 vii