Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program - Peer Exchange Report - A Two-Phase Peer-to-Peer Roundtable on Potential Transit Projects in the Nine-County Philadelphia Region Location: Philadelphia, PA   Date:     April 8, 2004 and June 16, 2004   Exchange Host Agency:    Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Exchange Participants: Amtrak City of Philadelphia Charlotte Area Transit System, NC Dallas Area Rapid Transit, TX Delaware River Port Authority Transit Corporation of Pennsylvania and New Jersey (PATCO) Federal Transit Administration, Headquarters Federal Transit Administration, Region 3 Greater Philadelphia Transportation Initiative New Jersey Transit Parsons Brinckerhoff, Transit and Rail Systems Pennsylvanians for Transportation Solutions Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority US DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center I. Summary The following report summarizes the results of a Peer Roundtable held through the Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB) Program, which is jointly sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) hosted this two-day Peer Roundtable in Philadelphia, PA entitled Destination 2030: The Future in Transit. Phase One of the event was held on April 8, 2004 and was attended by approximately 75 key stakeholders from the local government, transit agencies, transportation consulting firms and planning organizations. Phase Two was held on June 16, 2004, with over 150 participants. The purpose of the Phase Two meeting was to invite various stakeholders and the public at large to hear ideas about new transit and transit-oriented development in the Philadelphia area. The objective of the first phase of the event was to share methods of evaluating and prioritizing project proposals, developing regional consensus, and funding projects. At the forum, each of 14 key potential rail and bus rapid transit projects in Philadelphia and the nine county-region of Pennsylvania and New Jersey covered by the DVRPC were presented and reviewed in detail. Representatives from Dallas Area Rapid Transit, the Charlotte Area Transit System, and the Port Authority of Allegheny County then shared experiences and methods for creating transit agendas in their respective regions. Small group break out sessions and question and answer periods provided an opportunity for participants to offer perspectives, input, and guidance. The objective of the second phase of the exchange was to open the discussion on the future of transit in the Delaware Valley to everyone in the public sector, private sector, and interested citizens. The session allowed interested parties to learn about the various proposals and to help identify the most important priorities for the region. II. Background The Philadelphia region has developed a number of proposals for transit projects over the last several years. These projects have been initiated through a variety of agencies and are in various stages of development. Some of these projects are resident in the initial stages of the New Starts process and others are moving through the study and development stages of planning. Limited funding availability, particularly in the Philadelphia region, calls for some critical consideration of the value of the various project proposals. As a region, Philadelphia would likely pursue New Starts funding for some of these projects. Realizing that limited Federal, state, and local funding means that they cannot all be funded, it is necessary for the region to come together on a prioritization schedule for these projects and promote them as a unified region. The DVRPC in its role as Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Philadelphia region is taking the lead in identifying a vision for transit in metropolitan Philadelphia, and in prioritizing the project proposals to support that vision. As these project proposals come from many factions throughout the region, they represent a number of interests, which are often competing interests. As such, it is a difficult undertaking to establish a consensus among the various sponsors. Through the Peer Roundtable, the DVRPC brought together local and regional planning professionals, elected officials, and other interested stakeholders to discuss the vision for transit in the region and to work toward a consensus on a prioritization schedule for the following transit project proposals: Schuylkill Valley Metro (SVM) [Philadelphia to Wyomissing (Berks)] Cross County Corridor [Glenloch (Chester) to Trenton, NJ] Route 100 Extension to King of Prussia 52nd Street/ Center City (City Branch) Corridor Connector Route R3 (Elwyn) Extension to Wawa Philadelphia to New York City One-seat Ride New Jersey Route 1, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study Trenton to NJ State House Light Rail Extension West Trenton Line Restoration of Passenger Service Study (West Trenton to Newark) Route 55 to Philadelphia Corridor Transit Study Harrisburg to Philadelphia (Keystone Corridor) Broad Street Extension to the Philadelphia Navy Yard Roosevelt Boulevard Corridor Study Quakertown/Stony Creek Branches Rail Restoration (Norristown to Shelly) III. Panelist Perspectives, Phase One Phase One of the Peer Roundtable opened with introductory comments made by the moderators: Don Shanis of the DVRPC, Dick Voith of Greater Philadelphia Transit Initiative (GPTI) and Beverly Harper of Pennsylvanians for Transportation Solutions (PenTrans). They pointed out that there are multiple, and sometimes conflicting objectives that policy makers try to achieve through transportation, including employment and land use development agendas. Over the next 20 years, there will be $5.5 to $10 billion available in capital for transit projects. As the Delaware Valley attempts to shape its long-range plan, it is important to achieve consensus on what projects to select and how to implement, finance, and fund them. A. Regional Overview and Trends Barry Seymour of the DVRPC provided an overview of population growth, land use development, employment, and lifestyle trends experienced in the Delaware Valley Region. He also provided an overview of the major objectives that transportation is intended to meet as well the issues that planners should expect to encounter over the next 20 years: The Delaware Valley is a slow growth region. In 2025, the population of Philadelphia is projected to decrease by 50,000 and many of the regions that transit has traditionally served are experiencing decreased population. Over the past 5 years the population has increased in the Delaware Valley by only 5%. By contrast, in Atlanta, population has increased by 40% over the past 5 years. Although its population is not growing rapidly, the Delaware Valley is experiencing rapid sprawl. Over the last 70 years, the rate of land development has increased at 5 times the rate of population growth, and car ownership has increased by 30% over the past 5 years. The number of people that commute into Center City (Philadelphia's downtown, generally defined as the area between the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers and Vine and South Streets) is decreasing, and the number of people that commute within suburbs is increasing. In the past, much of the work force commuted from the suburbs to Center City, however, as businesses locate in the suburbs, this is no longer the case. The result of these trends is a decrease in the use of the current transit system, which is geared toward suburb to Center City commute patterns. As the Delaware Valley proceeds with creating its long-range plan, it must consider new markets that it may serve. For example, by 2025, over 20% of the Delaware Valley population is expected to be over the age of 60. As those citizens start to drive less, there will be a greater opportunity for transit to serve an older ridership. More importantly, transit is not currently serving those who commute and travel between suburbs. The degree to which transit can serve the suburb-to-suburb market will indefinitely affect the future viability of transit in the Delaware Valley. Because more than two thirds of the money dedicated to the long-range plan will be used to maintain the current transit system, there is limited opportunity for new projects. It is therefore essential to prioritize the potential projects and implement those most likely to meet identified transportation objectives. Key transportation objectives include: Reducing accidents, deaths, and injuries; Reducing air, water, and noise pollution; Ensuring that the disadvantaged, elderly, and low-income have access to reliable transportation; Reducing time wasted by congestion and traffic delay; Seeking modal choice opportunities; Reducing the amount of money lost by investing in the maintenance of outdated systems; Revitalization and renewal of the core cities; Stabilization, maintenance, and restoration of the first generation suburbs; Growth management and enhanced community design of the growing suburbs; Preservation and limited growth in the rural areas; Improving mobility options such as transit, bicycle, and pedestrian, enhancing environmental quality; Facilitating goods movement; and Expanding air passenger freight services. Key transportation implementation issues include: Overcoming fragmented local decisions; Curtailing the "Ratables Chase" by municipalities; Generating additional funding for transit projects; Enlisting the private sector for policy, project, and funding support; Emphasizing implementation partnerships (both public and private); Maintaining key policies and programs, and linking land use and transportation; and Speeding project delivery while maintaining environmental quality. B. Future Transit Opportunities and Selection Criteria Richard Voith of GPTI discussed budget issues affecting transit in the Delaware Valley. He also provided a brief introduction to each of the 14 projects to be presented at the forum, as well as a framework for evaluating them: Public transit authorities are confronting daunting budget deficits. There is a gap between money allocated to transit and transit expenditures. However, deficits do not make regional needs disappear. It is therefore important to plan, prioritize and achieve consensus regarding which transit projects to implement and how to fund them. Some of the 14 projects to be presented at the forum focus on reinvesting and filling gaps in the current system. Other projects focus on investing in new communities. The 14 projects are in various phases of development, require different levels of investment, and have acquired varying degrees of public visibility. For example, some of the projects have the support of public advocacy groups, while others do not. When evaluating the projects, it is important to consider their level of consistency with the Regional Vision. For example, do the projects support growth objectives of the Regional Plan, and what are its implications for existing communities? What are the impacts on sprawl? Will the project enhance the economic competitiveness of the region? Will the project improve the quality of life? It is also important to consider their cost effectiveness, transportation effectiveness, and potential to receive funding. C. New Project Proposals David Fogel and Mike DiCamillo of the Southeastern Transportation Authority (SEPTA) provided an overview of five potential projects for which SEPTA is the lead agency: Schuylkill Valley Metro, Cross County Metro, Route 100 Extension, 52nd Street/City Branch Corridor, and Elwyn to Wawa Service Restoration: Schuylkill Valley Metro (SVM) [Philadelphia to Wyomissing (Berks)] This metro line would run along a 62-mile corridor from Wyomissing Station in Berks County, through Chester and Montgomery Counties to Market East Station in Philadelphia. It is viewed as a tool for revitalizing communities along the corridor. The SEPTA Board selected the Metro-Rail as the locally preferred alternative in June of 2000, and the major investment and draft environmental impact studies were completed in September of 2001. FTA has approved $16.8 million in federal share funds for preliminary engineering. In 2004 the PA Department of Transportation Task Force convened to resolve issues of project definition, phasing, and local funding. The project is estimated to require $2.07 billion in 2003 dollars for capital and $35 million per year to operate, and to have a ridership of 49,760 passengers per day in 2020. Cross County Corridor [Glenloch (Chester) to Trenton, NJ] This Metro-Rail line would run approximately 60 miles from Trenton, NJ to Thorndale in Chester County. It is seen as an opportunity to link transportation to land use and to meet changing transportation demands. Proposed stations are in Trenton, Bucks County, Montgomery County, and Chester County. The first phase would involve running the Metro-Rail from Thorndale to Norristown, which would serve existing R5 stations at Thorndale, Downingtown, and Exton, the existing R6 station at Norristown Transportation Center and new stations at Glenloch, Great Valley, King of Prussia, Plaza-Court, First Avenue, and Valley Forge. All stations would have high-level platforms and an express bus service on the PA Turnpike would run from King of Prussia to Oxford Valley. Phase two involves adding additional service from Norristown to Trenton and discontinuing the express bus service. Proposed, high platform stations are at Plymouth Meeting, Fort Washington, Dresher, Willow Grove, Feasterville, Langhorne, Woodbourne, Oxford Valley, Falls Township, and Trenton, NJ stations. Connections would also be provided to the R5 at Fort Washington, R3 at Woodbourne, and R7 at Trenton. The SEPTA Board selected the Metro-Rail as the locally preferred alternative in October of 2002, and the alternatives analysis and draft environmental impact studies were completed in December of 2003. The project is estimated to require $1.023 billion in 2002 dollars for capital and $38.5 million per year to operate, and to have a ridership of 420,203 passengers per day in 2020. Route 100 Extension to King of Prussia This service would run from Valley Forge and Norristown to Hughes Park, and is projected to allay increasing traffic congestion in the area. It involves a 4.9-mile extension and four new stations including one park and ride facility. The feasibility study was completed in 1998. Currently four scenarios are being evaluated and the draft financial plan and alternatives analysis were due in the spring of 2004. Depending on the alternative chosen, it will require an estimated $127 to $271 million in 2002 dollars for capital and $3.3 to $5.96 million to operate, and will carry a projected 12,740 passengers per day in 2020. 52nd Street/ Center City (City Branch) Corridor Connector This proposed transit service would serve the West Philadelphia community by connecting the Schuylkill Valley Metro 52nd Street Station in Parkside with Fairmount Park, the Benjamin Franklin Parkway institutions, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Center City. In proceeding with this project it is important to utilize an existing freight right of way (the City Branch). The region has an abundance of freight right of way, however there has been a challenge in creating partnerships. $495K in federal earmark funds was awarded for the alternatives analysis study, and a consultant contract award is anticipated for the spring of 2004. Projected capital costs, operating costs, and ridership are to be determined. Route R3 (Elwyn) Extension to Wawa This service would extend the existing Elwyn station to a new Wawa station by restoring railroad service on part of the R3 line. In the mid 1800s the West Chester line was built, however, service West of Elwyn terminated in 1986. The project is intended to address growing demand for regional rail service in Delaware and Chester counties and to help alleviate parking concerns at Elwyn station. Its infrastructure needs include developing a new station at Wawa with upgraded access to US Route 1, upgrading track with new second track at Wawa, upgrading the catenary system including structural repairs, developing a new signal and communication system, upgrading bridges, restoring ditches and culverts, and stabilizing retaining walls and embankments. A Feasibility Study was completed in June of 2000 and $2 million has been approved for engineering. An RFP for consultants is expected to be established by March 2004. The project is estimated to require $40.6 million in 1999 dollars for capital, and $1.5 million per year to operate, and to have a ridership of 1,064 passengers per day in 2020. Jack Kanarek of New Jersey Transit provided an overview of four projects for which New Jersey Transit is involved as a lead agency: the Philadelphia to New York City One-Seat Ride, New Jersey Route 1 Bus Rapid Transit Study, Trenton to NJ State House Light Rail Extension, and the West Trenton Line restoration of passenger service study: Philadelphia to New York City One-seat Ride This service would provide one-seat train rides between Penn Station in New York City and 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. Stations along the way would be located at Newark Penn Station, NIA, Elizabeth, Metropark, New Brunswick, Princeton Junction, Trenton, Cornwells Heights, and North Philadelphia. Due to price sensitivity to Amtrak fares, many passengers currently use local trains, with a transfer at Trenton, to travel between NY/NJ and Pennsylvania. The study for this project indicated that it would be feasible to run hourly service, that travel time could be about 30 to 40 minutes faster than the existing New Jersey Transit/SEPTA coordinated schedule, and that about 2,000 one-way weekday passengers would use 16 trains in each direction each day. The use of typical NJ Transit electric locomotive propelled coaches was assumed for the study. Institutional and financial issues that would require resolution include determining overnight train layover and maintenance facilities, Amtrak's position on the project in light of the Northeast Corridor capacity limitations, funding for added rail rolling stock and for an operating subsidy, and labor agreements. Estimates for capital and maintenance costs are yet to be determined. New Jersey Route 1, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study This project would serve New Jersey Route One from New Brunswick to Trenton with Bus Rapid Transit, a relatively new transit mode that invests in improvements to roadways, rights-of-way, intersections, traffic signals, and fare collection to speed up bus transit. Based on light-rail transit principles, BRT combines the most attractive features of light rail transit with the lower costs of bus technology. Existing deficiencies of the Route 1 Corridor include congestion, limited transit service, highways that are at or near capacity, and sprawl. The Central Jersey Transportation Forum assessed transportation improvement options for the Route 1 corridor. Both highway and transit options were evaluated and light rail and BRT were considered before consensus was achieved on continuing analysis of BRT. Next steps include hosting public open houses, preparing the purpose and needs statement, developing a list of alternatives, evaluating operations/economics, and preparing a phased implementation plan. Estimates for capital and maintenance costs and ridership are to be determined. Trenton to NJ State House Light Rail Extension This transit project would extend the current 34.5-mile diesel light rail River Line service between Camden and Trenton by running from Trenton Station onto State Street to serve the downtown office concentration and state house area. This project has the potential to support center city revitalization, boost tourism, spur economic growth, improve mobility and connectivity, and reduce congestion and air pollution. A Supplemental NJ Executive Order 215 Environmental Impact Statement has been completed; however, funding is not available to continue with the development of the project and estimates for capital and maintenance costs and ridership are to be determined. West Trenton Line Restoration of Passenger Service Study (West Trenton to Newark)This project involves the restoration of passenger rail service that was discontinued due to budgetary constraints in 1982. The proposed alignment is a 27-mile line in West Trenton, extending from the Raritan Valley Line in Bridgewater, NJ south through Somerset and Mercer counties to West Trenton station in Ewing Township, NJ. There are 5 proposed stations including a connection with SEPTA's R3 Line at West Trenton Station in Ewing, NJ. Proposed project elements include second track segments, signaling, stations/parking, a train storage yard, and rolling stock. In 1994 NJ Transit performed a detailed technical study on the project, and in 1997 Somerset County secured a federal earmark to fund additional analysis and conceptual planning for service restoration. The Environmental Assessment is expected to be completed by the end of 2004, and additional analysis of optional Lehigh Line flyover in Manville is underway. The project is currently estimated to require $120 million for capital and to have a ridership of 2,500 trips per day in 2020. Robert Box of the Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO) presented information on the results of the Route 55 to Philadelphia Corridor Transit Study: Route 55 to Philadelphia Corridor Transit Study This study is being conducted by DRPA/PATCO through a consulting agreement with Bi State Transit Consultants. The purpose of this study was to identify public transportation needs in a defined benefit area, and transit opportunities that directly address those needs. The Transit Benefit Area included Downtown Philadelphia to Penn's Landing, Camden, and the areas of Gloucester and Cumberland Counties along a corridor generally described by Route 55. PATCO expects to complete the feasibility study by the end of the summer of 2004. The next phase in the project development process will be alternatives analysis. As of April 2004, three public official briefings have been held as well as four community outreach meetings and 24 targeted outreach interviews with stakeholders. The short list of New Jersey transit alternatives includes PATCO service from Camden to Glassboro/Millville via Route 55, and PATCO service from Camden to Glassboro/Millville via Railroad right-of-way. The short list of Philadelphia transit alternatives includes a trolley/streetcar from Franklin Square Station to North/South Waterfront and an Extension of subway/surface network to North/South Waterfront. The initial project anticipates service along Columbus Boulevard between Spring Garden Street and Pier 70. However, in both cases, the alignment could extend north far enough to serve the North Delaware Waterfront area and south to serve the Naval Business Center and the stadium complex. The next steps for the study involve developing and evaluating key attributes of each alternative, performing a second round of community outreach, developing a final report, determining projects to be pursued in NJ and PA, and identifying next phases and funding sources. John Conlow of Amtrak presented information on the Harrisburg to Philadelphia (Keystone Corridor) project: Harrisburg to Philadelphia (Keystone Corridor) This project would restore and improve reliable Keystone Line service. Without increasing operating costs, more trips would be provided between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, 15 minutes would be cut off the Philadelphia to Harrisburg trip, and 20 minutes would be cut off the Philadelphia to New York trip. The program has been underway since FY02 and its thrust reflects the approach taken by the president of Amtrak, which is to obtain maximum benefit and efficiencies from investments. Improvements like bridge upgrades and catenary rehabilitation would be included to get the Keystone line where it would need to be for the project. Amtrak is not funded by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and funding levels are very erratic. However, Dunn is of the opinion that Amtrak has traditionally engaged in under investment. For example, the Keystone Corridor line has virtually been ignored until this project. This project is anticipated to require $140 million in 2001 dollars for capital. Operating costs and ridership are to be determined. Christopher Zearfoss and Ed Duffy of the City of Philadelphia presented the Broad Street Extension to the Philadelphia Navy Yard and The Roosevelt Boulevard Corridor projects: Broad Street Extension to the Philadelphia Navy Yard This project involves extending the Broad Street Line of the subway towards the southeast to the Navy Center. For a relatively small increase in operating costs, the additional service would alleviate problems due to lack of parking space at the Navy Center, serve new office facilities that are likely to be developed, and promote ridership. Required capital costs for this project are estimated at $259 million. Roosevelt Boulevard Corridor Study The short list for this study includes five alternatives including BRT, heavy rail, and light rail options. The alternative selected involves the construction of a new, modern subway with elevation north of Blue Grass Road. The system would connect directly into Broad Street Express tracks and it could include a 1-mile subway extension under Bustleton Avenue. The project would promote transit-oriented development, particularly benefiting the Roosevelt Mall/Cottman Avenue Station Area, as well as cleaner air. It is projected to divert 85,000 trips from cars and account for 351,000 fewer vehicle miles traveled per day in 2020. A drawback of the project is that it would involve a very disruptive construction period. It is projected to require $3.0 billion in capital costs and $56.3 million in operational costs in 2000 dollars, and to have a ridership of 124,500 per day in 2020. Tom Hickey of Parsons Brinckerhoff Transit and Rail Systems, Inc. presented information on the Quakertown/Stony Creek Branches Rail Restoration (Norristown to Shelly) Project: Quakertown/Stony Creek Branches Rail Restoration (Norristown to Shelly) The Lead agency for this project is Bucks County and it involves running a locomotive line from Norristown to Shelly. Feasibility studies were completed in 1997 for LANT and in 2000 for Bucks County. The earmark for alternatives analysis/preliminary engineering is in the house reauthorization bill. The project is estimated to require $180.2 million to $214.5 million in capital costs and $5.3 million to $5.7 million in operational costs in 1999 dollars, and to have a ridership of 4,200 - 6,800 per day in 2020. IV. Lessons Learned from Other MPOs, Phase One A. Charlotte Area Transit System, John Muth John Muth of the Charlotte Area Transit System provided an overview of transit planning in the seven county Charlotte-Mecklenburg region. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg region is the 34th largest metropolitan area in the nation, with a population of 1.5 million. Since 1980 it has grown by nearly 75% and it is projected to more than double by 2035, with employment projected to increase by over 60%. At the same time, the pressure for continued outward growth and auto dependant development is expected to intensify. In the context of this environment, it is a challenge for transit agencies in the region to build and maintain sustainable transit systems. The agency's key historic accomplishments include the development of a long-range transit plan on transit ways in corridors in 1977, the transit corridor study on high capacity transit in eight corridors in 1989, and establishing committees to establish transportation objectives in 1994 and 1996. The committees were referred to as the "Committee of 100" and the "Committee of 10" respectively. The Committee of 100 was charged with developing a community consensus vision for land use and transportation, defining major revenue sources for projects and determining an organizational structure. Regarding transit alternatives, the committee recommended improving express, local, and regional bus service, and planning and executing high capacity transit to meet long range needs. Regarding land use, the committee recommended establishing five primary transportation and development corridors. Regarding revenue sources, the committee recommended seeking enabling legislation for up to 1% sales tax authorized locally, requiring that revenues be spent by the counties in which they were generated and establishing local autonomy in project selection. Regarding organizational structure, the committee recommended creating a regional planning/coordination office and charging the state DOT with road construction and the local governments with the implementation of bus service improvements. Although the committee provided keen insight, in 1994 the region was not in a position to take on all their suggestions. The Committee of 10 was therefore established in 1996 and charged with reviewing and revising its predecessor's recommendations. As a result of its collaboration, a five-year transportation plan was developed and enabling tax legislation for a one-half (1/2) cent local option sales tax was approved in 1997. In 1998 the 2025 Integrated Transit/Land use plan was developed. The goals of the Plan included supporting the Centers and Corridors land use vision recommended by the Committee of 100, providing travel mode choices, developing a regional transit system, and supporting economic growth and sustainable development. In 1999 the South Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS) began, the Metropolitan Planning Commission was created and the City Transit Department was developed. In 2000 the South Corridor MIS, which selected light rail transit (LRT), was completed, the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) was created, an MIS began in each of four remaining corridors and preliminary engineering began on the South Corridor LRT. In 2002 the South Corridor LRT received a rating of "highly recommended" from the Federal Transit Administration, the four corridor MIS studies were completed, as was the South Corridor preliminary engineering. At this point a Draft environmental Impact Statement was issued. In 2003/2004 the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization approved the 2025 System Plan, the South Corridor LRT construction received a Record of Decision (ROD) and entry to Final Design, and engineering, environmental, and land use planning began on the other four corridors. The 2025 System Plan includes serving 215,000 daily transit riders, 28 miles of BRT, 21 miles of LRT, 11 miles of streetcar, 29 miles of commuter rail and an extensive network of bus and other types of transit services throughout the region. The 2025 Corridor System Plan is estimated to require $2.9 billion in inflated dollars in capital costs. 56% of those costs would be funded federally, 26% by the state, and 18% locally. The operating costs are estimated at $3.1 billion in inflated dollars, 64% of which would be funded by local/sales taxes, 21% by local and other sources, and 15% by the state. Next steps for CATS include continuing progress on the South Corridor LRT, initiating the engineering, environmental, and station area planning work on the four other corridors, and moving forward with work on the streetcar and the multimodal station projects. Making the land use connection, thinking and acting regionally, obtaining federal, local and state funding, controlling costs, communicating progress to the public, and providing a safe, and user-friendly design are identified as key to CAT's success. B. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Trip Brizell Trip Brizell of Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) spoke about community involvement, funding, and economic development lessons learned by DART staff as well as its history and anticipated future direction. Since 1984 DART has built 44 miles of light rail, 35 miles of commuter rail, and 31 miles of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. Its ridership has more than doubled and its operating budget has increased from $61 million to $307 million. Despite its current success, DART experienced substantial opposition throughout the 1980s. Contributing factors to this opposition included a lack of public input, political support, and credibility and a sluggish economy. In 1980 a proposal to levy a 1-cent sales tax that would help fund a service area including Dallas and Fort Worth failed by a margin of 2 to 1. In 1989 every city member voted against a bond referendum. These failures served to teach DART staff not to depend on sales tax projections and that success was contingent upon the ability to provide a comprehensive, multi modal, pay-as-you-go service. In 1989 DART developed a Transit System Plan that better met the needs of its users and garnered public support. Currently DART makes it a policy to engage in active outreach programs to build trust among the community, business, and political leaders. DART uses the Internet to supplement outreach activities and provides as much information to the public as possible. Regarding its approach to federal funding, DART now provides a strong overmatch, plans for the length of authorization periods, and applies only for appropriations that can be spent within the fiscal year. Regarding regional funding, DART has strived to establish funding partnerships with MPOs, the State, member cities, and counties. It is also pursing congestion mitigation and air quality funding for local funds and regional funds for DART service. The implementation of rail in Dallas proved to be extremely successful in promoting economic development at the stations, which now totals more than $800 million. From that experience, DART learned that the private sector recognizes how transit can increase economic development opportunities and that rail projects indeed serve as a catalyst for higher density land use. In addition, demand for rail service has increased among member cities and interest in the system has been expressed by non-member cities. These successes have led to the approval of a $2.9 billion long-term financing referendum in 2000 that enables DART to advance projects up to eight years sooner than previously planned. As DART develops its 2030 Transit System Plan the primary objectives will be to increase mobility, engage in fiscal responsibility, promote transit oriented development, and establish broad based support. C. Port Authority of Allegheny County, Richard Feder Richard Feder of the Allegheny County Port Authority provided an overview of the transit system in southwestern Pennsylvania and discussed a new starts project, finance, and the high-speed maglev. The transit system in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County is part of a 10-county region that includes transit systems in the nine surrounding counties. The system features a light rail system serving one corridor including a subway downtown, plus three busways and an HOV facility that cover the four directions of the compass. This program of public transportation evolved from a transit vision that dates from the 1960s. The future vision for the downtown that was originally developed by the City of Pittsburgh includes a key transit line that would link the Golden Triangle to the North Shore in concert with new development spreading in these areas. The project would involve a 1.5-mile extension to the current 25-mile light rail system and it would be designed to be able to extend into three or more new corridors, thereby increasing future transit ridership. This project is part of a larger vision that is evolving out of a regional transit visioning process and two major investment studies that have been undertaken over the past 2˝ years. Because it has had a unified vision, Allegheny County has been successful at acquiring Federal funding and has also used bond financing and flexible funding to pay for its projects. However, over the past 10 years, funding from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not kept up with inflation. Although regions are in competition for funding, their cooperation is crucial for the success and survival of transit over the long term. V. Observations and Suggestions, Phase One During the conference, participants broke into small groups to discuss their perspectives on the DVRPC's long-range transportation plan. In particular, they addressed issues related to regional trends, and investment, planning, and funding strategies. The following comments and observations resulted from the discussion: The transit projects selected ought to address changing employment trends including job outsourcing, reduced concentrations of office centers, and flexible work hours. Helping low wage and entry-level employees commute to work is another efficiency important to obtain. Increasing sprawl makes it more difficult to serve the public with transit. It is important to think carefully about the markets transit ought to pursue. Transit could serve to make Center City more desirable of a location in which to live and work or it could be tailored to those who travel primarily between suburbs. Ideally it would serve both markets. Some participants agreed that an attempt to attract suburban markets to transit might be futile, as they are becoming increasingly car reliant. Others noted that cities and counties ought to consider the tens of billions of dollars that are already invested in the commuter rail infrastructure and take advantage of this mobility asset by providing incentives for businesses to locate at a station and not in an undeveloped area requiring more expenditure for roads, water, sewer, etc. It was also noted that New Start system rail extension projects can be successful if they are planned to satisfy changing demand, include supportive land-use policies at town stations that will encourage ridership growth, and have strategically located regional Park and Ride Stations. Participants agreed that worthwhile investments include those that enhance the current transit system. Enhancements could include providing real-time schedule information to passengers and changing the design of buses to make them more attractive, particularly to the baby boom generation ridership. Investments that add new passengers and new passenger miles and that enhance existing linkages are also worthwhile. SEPTA currently provides general information on New Start project descriptions and status. SEPTA's Capital Budget/Program would be a good first start to determine the cost of improving the current SEPTA system. The Capital Budget/Program is available online at www.septa.org Suggested funding strategies might include SEPTA saving 10% of its capital budget for New Starts projects, using flex funding, particularly for the Roosevelt Highway project, presenting transit as a Regional Asset, (for example, parks, libraries, and cultural resources qualify as Regional Assets and receive state funding) and establishing partnerships with the business community. More institutional integration among transit agencies would help to overcome fragmentation so that they are better equipped to justify a long-range plan. Establishing a strong regional agenda, rather than niche agendas, will make it easier to obtain project funding. The DVRPC should take the lead in developing an agenda for the region and in successfully communicating to the public that improvements to transit can and will be made. Other priorities include creating a new set of transit advocates, educating the next generation of leaders, and communicating to elected officials that transit is an economic development strategy. VI. Role of Transit in Philadelphia, Phase Two Phase Two opened the discussion to a broader audience, enabling the public sector, private sector, and individual citizens to learn more about the proposals, weigh in on priorities, and network with each other. Allen Biehler, Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation, gave an overview of the role of transit in Pennsylvania's transportation system. Pennsylvania is responsible for more highway miles than all of New England combined. Even so, transit has served an important role. Biehler suggested that in recent years, Philadelphia has been more successful than Pittsburgh, for example, partly due to the transit that has been maintained in the area, in particular SEPTA's rail system. However, federal support for SEPTA has dropped off since 1980, as federal highway funding has surpassed federal transit funding, and statewide transit operating assistance has failed to keep pace with inflation. SEPTA ridership has declined from the 300 million served in 1965, but is still sizable at 200 million passengers per year. Biehler proposed that sprawling development patterns are related to the ridership trends in Philadelphia. Transit-oriented development that takes advantage of Philadelphia's existing infrastructure would support ridership growth. According to Biehler, the state of Pennsylvania is committed to reinvesting in communities and promoting transit, aided by programs such as the governor's Growing Greener II program. However, he pointed to more aggressive policies-such as that in Wales, United Kingdom, where $3 to $4 of tax per gallon of gas helps fund transit programs-and challenged the federal, state, and local governments to boost their commitments. Jack Lettiere, New Jersey Transportation Commissioner, described a vision for the future of expanding transit service in New Jersey. Northeastern New Jersey has robust transit facilities, serving a region that leads the Northeast in economic and job growth. However the New Jersey system's needs are great, especially in the southern part of the state, where future growth is expected but residents are not accustomed to a transit lifestyle. To truly serve the customers, what is needed is to make the transit experience more like the car experience, said Lettiere, with regional train connections providing one-seat rides and information provided inside the transit vehicle, similar to what a driver might have in his own car. For example, existing technology could be used to give customers needed information on the rest of their commute, such as traffic conditions, whether connecting trains are on time, and weather forecasts. Lettiere also suggested that the interface between private vehicles and transit needs to be improved. Because it is no longer effective to think of highways and transit separately, New Jersey's budget now supports highways and transit equally. Two remaining challenges include using available funding more wisely, through cross-state compacts and enhanced regionalism, and to increase the funding available, perhaps through more innovative taxing policies. Douglas Allen, Executive Vice President of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, presented a summary of transit expansion in the Dallas area. Dallas needed to expand transit services due to growing mobility problems. A doubling of travel in the area caused a five-fold increase in congestion. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) was created to implement a diversified plan for mobility, focusing on providing new service to targeted market areas. To raise money for transit, the region instituted a dedicated one-cent sales tax. Using a pay-as-you-grow method, DART eventually earned debt capacity. Today, the largest share of DART's funding still comes from the region's sales tax, with an additional one-quarter provided by debt issuance, one-fifth from federal aid, and about 7 percent from revenue. DART spends about 50 percent of expenditures on operating, and about 40 percent on capital outlay. A big advantage of DART's dedicated funding source is that it allows the agency to conduct long-range planning with some amount of certainty about the future. DART's goal has been to treat transit as an amenity rather than a utility, making transit service comfortable, attractive, clean, safe, geographically useful, and as user-friendly as possible. Allen stressed the importance of partnerships with the private sector in cultivating transit-oriented development. Richard Lombardo, Deputy Executive Director of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, described some of the transit-oriented growth options for the Philadelphia area. Philadelphia faces some unique problems as a post-industrial city looking to re-use land in the midst of an existing transit system and established communities. One area where there are larger tracts of land-which tend to be more appealing to developers-is along the riverfront, which the city has identified as an opportunity for development. The North Delaware Riverfront plan is an example proposal for this area, including about 3,500 acres of vacant land, some of which are superfund sites. Lombardo explained that the key ingredient for marketing the riverfront land is that it is well connected to the Trenton rail line and the I-95 corridor. While challenges exist in developing these areas-such as restrictive zoning, isolation from the river, and pollution-the city hopes to bring Philadelphia to the river and attract developers to a city with riverfront and transit-oriented opportunities. VII. New Transit Ideas and Funding Options, Phase Two Faye Moore, General Manager of the South Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), introduced the Save Transit Coalition and its goals. A major challenge for SEPTA is that the system's funding has been sporadic and unreliable. A reliable funding source would help the agency's ability to perform long-term planning. According to Moore, the existing system is in jeopardy. Without robust transit services, the economic vitality of southeastern Pennsylvania may also be threatened. The mission of the Save Transit Coalition (savetransit.org) is to call upon the state's General Assembly to enact legislation that creates a dedicated and predictable source of funding for SEPTA and all transit organizations across Pennsylvania. While the coalition has many partners, Moore encourages others to join the coalition and help advance its cause. Richard Voith, Executive Director of the Greater Philadelphia Transit Initiative, provided an overview of the discussion in Phase One, and explained the voting methodology to be used in Phase Two. As discussed during Phase One, public transit authorities are confronting daunting budget deficits and regional decentralization is making transit less competitive. These pressures make prioritizing projects more critical than ever. During Phase One, 70 planners and transportation officials considered 14 specific transit investment proposals. They grouped them into three categories: (1) reinvesting in the current system; (2) filling in links; and (3) expanding the geographic scope of the system. The group decided that investing in the existing system is a high priority and that missing links should be filled. There was concern that "new frontier" investments will encourage sprawl. In discussing how best to reinvest in the current system, attendees identified inadequate and uncertain funding, obsolete passenger amenities, complex fare structures, and poor customer information as issues that hinder its success. Passengers would like to see greater frequency and speed and longer hours of service. To achieve this, transit-oriented development and a change in culture to attract new riders (rather than focusing on managing decline) are necessary. In terms of funding and support, the group pointed out that the region needs to prove that it can undertake a major transit project. They noted that funding issues must be addressed at both the state and local levels. A lesson related by the guest speakers at the Phase One meeting was that for successful fund-raising, there needs to be community consensus and strong local matches. Voith invited the audience to use the faux dollars that had been distributed to each participant to vote for specific projects at the end of the meeting. VIII. Transit-Oriented Development Opportunities Lewis Gould, Commissioner of Lower Merion Township, described a transit-oriented development effort underway in his jurisdiction. Lower Merion Township is a suburb that originally grew out of a Pennsylvania railroad development project. Today, the Township needs new economic development in order to relieve its residents of high property taxes. Town leaders decided to focus their development effort around the SEPTA and Amtrak station already located in town. They have drafted a vision of what they would like-a pedestrian friendly, economically vibrant downtown area. However, to implement this vision, they would like to spend about $150 million. So far, they have committed $600,000 on their own. A challenge they have encountered in attracting developers is that they only have small developable areas rather than larger parcels of land. In trying to amass larger parcels to market to developers, the Township commissioners have raised the ire of local stakeholders who are now mobilizing to block the project. In the meantime, the Township is establishing a redevelopment authority, and has passed a transit-oriented development ordinance that makes certain sites more attractive for development. They are also offering density incentives to encourage mixed-income housing. Additionally, SEPTA and Amtrak are helping bring in federal money. Anthony Marchetta, LCOR, Inc., shared the perspective of a real estate developer on transit-oriented projects. "Transit-oriented development" refers to projects that tie to transit in some fashion, which is attractive to real-estate developers because it is both profitable and seen as an expanding market. Financial advantages include the possibility for charging higher rents and sale prices because of proximity to commuting, higher densities (which are more cost effective), and public assistance in gaining local entitlements and in covering the costs of acquisition, financing, and infrastructure. Transit-oriented development is also viewed as beneficial to the host community because it generates fewer school-age children, fewer vehicle-miles-traveled, higher densities (lower infrastructure costs), and enlivens downtown areas. However, transit-oriented development also brings some particular challenges, such as aging infrastructure associated with older communities, small parcels with environmental constraints, existing zoning and design standards, excessive parking requirements, and financing difficulties in older centers. Examples of transit-oriented LCOR developments include: Gaslight Commons (South Orange, New Jersey) Bank Street Commons (White Plains, New York) White Flint Metro-Rail Station (North Bethesda, Maryland) Mixed-Use facility at Rutgers State University 101 Hudson Street (Jersey City, New Jersey) Foley Square Federal Office Building (New York, New York Marchetta recommends that local officials try to develop public support for transit-oriented development projects. They should consider creating a redevelopment district and develop market-based plans. Flexible zoning standards, assistance in parcel assemblage and relocation, and enhancement of public spaces also is helpful to developers. Finally, Marchetta recommends that officials insist on high quality design and architecture, as it can make a big difference in the success of the project. Joel Schwarz, Landmark Communities, discussed some of the design details that make transit-oriented development projects successful. While potential downtown redevelopment sites are everywhere, as a developer, the challenge is figuring out how to build on sites to make them attractive. Schwarz proposed that the details make all the difference. As an example, he described the design process of Franklin Square, a 150-unit residential development in Metuchen, New Jersey. The project incorporated higher densities than had been acceptable in the past, aided by strong public-private partnerships. Design also helped create an attractive landscape that appears less dense than it actually is. For example, one porch serves two unit entrances and looks like one house. And rather than have each unit identically designed, they incorporated 24 different unit types. Schwarz identified the placement of parking and trash bins as other important challenges. Landmark Communities managed to provide two parking spaces per unit without allowing parking to become a major presence on the site by creating internal streets that provided half the parking spaces, and then tucking away additional spaces in small lots throughout the development. They dealt with trash by designing attractive sheds right on the street to conceal trash. Schwarz advised municipalities to hire developers who will not give up, and who are committed to ironing out the essential details of the design. For developers, Schwarz advises that there is a reward for hard work, and it is worth persevering. Ken Snapp, Director of Project Planning for New Jersey Transit, described the move toward transit-oriented development in New Jersey and his agency's four-step process for bringing projects to fruition. One in four New Jersey towns hosts a rail station, and 71 percent (or 6 million) residents live within 5 miles of a station. Many developers are now interested in partnering with New Jersey Transit for development projects. The state has a Development & Redevelopment Plan that encourages growth in areas where infrastructure exists. However, New Jersey has 566 different municipalities, each with their own land use ordinances. The bigger challenge is finding communities that are interested in embracing transit-oriented development. It is important to encourage dialog with communities about transit to pave the way for private developers to follow. Successful examples of transit-oriented development in the state include projects in Rutherford, South Orange, and Jersey City. For future projects, New Jersey Transit hopes to focus on urban centers such as Newark, former industrial properties such as in Wood-Ridge, and suburban park and ride locations like Hamilton Station. New Jersey Transit's four-step process for transit-oriented development includes: Educate using handbooks, pamphlets, and a web-based newsletter; Establish a community-based vision that provides a flexible framework for zoning and building codes; Plan by writing zoning regulations and redevelopment policies and keeping the code as flexible as possible to accommodate the private sector; and Implement by working with the private sector, with the private sector taking a leading role. Snapp reports that some of the major challenges include: Continuing to educate local governments, Maintaining "good" project execution, Keeping pace with the changes in the marketplace, Balancing parking needs with development, Reinvesting in public infrastructure, School quality and local tax concerns, and Providing improved transit options. New Jersey offers excellent opportunities for development because of the state's focus on smart growth, consumer demand for livable communities, developer interest, and local interest in economic reinvestment. IX. Voting Results of Phase Two At the end of the Phase Two event, attendees were invited to spend faux dollars on any of 16 specific investments as a mechanism to communicate priority projects. The options included the proposals previously discussed, as well as improving the fare collection system, extended service frequency and hours, and real time passenger information. The locally elected officials and decision makers were asked to choose projects benefiting the region, though not necessarily in their own county or municipality. The capital budget for transit projects in the nine county region is constrained at $50 million per year for 20 years. The attendees had five $1 million bills, and were encouraged to invest their funds in 16 projects or a 17th "Other" selection. By playing the role of regional decision maker, attendees allocated their bills to the project or projects which were believed to have the greatest value to the region and which could be supported publicly. Destination 2030: Transit Project Spending Exercise           Philadelphia to Gloucester Transit Assessment $87 11.9% Schuylkill Valley Metro $85 11.6% Broad Street Extension to the Philadelphia Navy Yard $70 9.5% Quakertown/Stony Creek Branches Rail Restoration $66 9.0% Route 100 Ext to King of Prussia $60 8.2% Philadelphia to New York City One-seat Ride $56 7.6% 21st Century fare collection system $45 6.1% Trenton to NJ State House Light Rail Extension $43 5.9% Roosevelt Blvd. Corridor $41 5.6% Route R3 (Elwyn) Extension to West Chester $33 4.5% Extended service frequency and hours $31 4.2% Other Projects – see bullets below $30 4.1% Real time passenger information $29 4.0% New Jersey Route 1, Bus Rapid Transit Study $19 2.6% 52nd Street/ Center City Corridor Connector $17 2.3% West Trenton Line restoration of passenger service $11 1.5% Cross County Corridor Glenloch to Trenton, NJ $10 1.4%   $733   All dollar amounts in millions of dollars Other projects written in by attendees included: Keystone Corridor upgrade; R5 extension to Atglen, Parksburg, Coatesville as part of Keystone Upgrade (2 votes); Chester to Philadelphia rail link. Better connections using dual mode locomotives and new tunnels (2 votes) Upgrade entire regional rail to Metro-Rail service. Culture change-attracting new riders; new identity or advertising and “look” campaign for SEPTA. Better transit connections between small first ring suburbs, eg.: Drexel Hill to Springfield. Safer step on/off from trains for seniors, children, mildly infirm; high level platforms. Increase service to Newark, Delaware. Improve connections with Trans-Bridge Lines at Doylestown. East-West subway/lightrail extension across lower south Philadelphia connection to University City via Washington Avenue. Atlantic City rail connection to PATCO/SEPTA. Increase service frequencies to/from airport to 15 minutes. Parking expansion at rail stations. Subway running underneath Ben Franklin Parkway. Service improvements: 15 minute peak service, extended hours, one-man operations. Proof of payment fare collection; Fare collection improvement and cooperation between agencies. Subsidized taxi services for “on demand” service. As shown in the table, of the $733 million “spent” by 147 participants about 12 percent of the money was given to the proposed Philadelphia to Gloucester Transit Assessment, a study of extending the River Line south. The next largest allocation was 11.6 percent to the Schuylkill Valley Metro. In the 4.1 percent “Other” category, suggestions ranged from decreasing service headways and adding high level platforms to new transit advertising and reviving former trolley service where they had run historically. While none of this spending is sufficient to pay for any of these projects outright, they do offer some insight as to where transit spending may be favored in the region. X. For More Information Key Contact for host agency: Keith Lynch Address: FTA Region 3 1760 Market Street, Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19103-4124 Phone: (215) 656-7100 Email: Keith.Lynch@fta.dot.gov Key Contact for host agency: John Coscia, Executive Director Address: Deleware Valley Regional Planning Commission The Boarse Building 111 South Independence Mall East Philadelphia, PA 19106-2582 Phone: (215) 592-2876 Email: jcoscia@dvrpc.org XI. Participants List Phase One A. Presenters Amtrak John Conlow 215-349-3033 conlowj@amtrak.com Charlotte Area Transit System John Muth 704-336-3373 jmuth@ci.charlotte.nc.us City of Philadelphia Christopher Zearfoss Ed Duffy 215-683-4667 Christopher.zearfoss@phila.gov DART Trip Brizell 214-749-2764 tbrizell@dart.org DVRPC Donald Shanis Barry Seymour 215-592-1800 dshanis@dvrpc.org bseymour@dvrpc.org GPTI Richard Voith 215-382-1919 voith@econsult.com PenTrans Beverly Harper Peter Javsicas 215-205-8157 bevharper@portfolioassociates.net javsicas@econsult.com P.B. Transit and Rail Systems, Inc. Tom Hickey 215-209-1266 hickey@pbworld.com PATCO Robert Box 215-772-6926 bbox@drpa.org Port Authority of Allegheny County Richard Feder 412-566-5109 rfeder@portauthority.org SEPTA David Fogel Mike DiCamillo 215-580-7238 215-580-7357 dfogel@septa.org mdicamillo@septa.org NJ Transit Jack Kanarek 973-491-7815 jkanarek@njtransit.com B. Forum Attendees Laurie Actman, Center City District Caroly Adams, Temple Unviersity Rich Amodei, STV, Inc. Leo Bagley, Montgomery County Planning Commission Ronald Bednar, PA DCED Rich Bickel, DVRPC Cecil Bond, SEPTA Mike Boyer, DVRPC Richard G. Grahler, Bucks County Planning Commission Sandra Brilhart, Greater Mercer TMA Andrew Carten, City of Trenton Cecile Charlton, Delaware County TMA Wayne Clapp, Chester Counting Planning Commission John Coscia, DVRPC Jeffrey Cosello, University of Pennsylvania David Crawford, Econsult Corporation Lisa DiTaranit, Systra Consulting Kevin Drennan, U.S. Senate Staff Edward Duffy, Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation Kathy Engebretwon, William Penn Foundation Terry Foley, Amtrak Peter Gaffer, Systra Consulting Honorable James W. Gerlach, U.S. Representative – Pennsylvania Nancy Goldenber, Center City District Denise Goren, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Joseph Hacker, DVRPC Frank Jaskiewicz, Kise Straw and Kolodner, Inc. Farah Jimenez, Mt. Airy USA Allen Lee, Systra Consulting Paul Levy, Center City District Kenneth Lomax, Philadelphia City Planning Commission Keith Lynch, FTA – Region III John Mathuessen, DRPA Shawn McCaney, William Penn Foundation Colin McNeil, Penjerdel Council Sara Meerriman, Philadelphia Department of Commerce Janet Milkman, 10,000 Friends of PA Dave Miller, Parsons Brinckerhoff Faye Moore, SEPTA Carolyn Mulvihill, FTA Dan Muroff, U.S. Congress Stephanie Naidoff, City of Philadelphia Don Nigro, DVARP Josh Nims, Innovation Philadelphia Steve Noll, Bucks County TMA Michael Nutter, City Council Chris Patton, SEPTA Peter Quinn, Greater Valley Forge TMA Richard Roberts, NJ Transit Ray Sachs, Chester County Planning Commission Anthony Santaniello, Philadelphia City Planning Commission James Schwarzwalder, JN Transit Drew Scott, Urban Engineers Thomas Shaffer, Delaware County Planning Department Thomas Spearing, STV, Inc. Patrick Starr, Pennsylvania Environmental Council Della Schweiger, 10, 000 Friends of PA Jienki Synn, DVRPC Joe Szafran, Special Assistant – U.S. Congress Carol Ann Thomas, Burlington County Herman Volk, New Jersey Office of Smart Growth Andrew Warren, PennDOT – District VI Vita Waters, Volpe Center Lee Whitmore, Chester County Planning Commission Steven Wray, Pennsylvania Economy League Phase Two A. Presenters Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Allen Biehler 717-787-5574 abiehler@state.pa.us New Jersey Department of Transportation Jack Lettiere 609-530-3536   Dallas Area Rapid Transit Douglas Allen 214-749-2750 allen@dart.org Philadelphia City Planning Commission Richard Lombardo 215-683-4602 215-683-4649 Rich.Lombardo@phila.gov Deleware Valley Regional Planning Commission Barry Seymour Don Shanis 215-592-1800 bseymour@dvrpc.org dshanis@dvrpc.org South Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Faye Moore 215-580-7111 fmoore@septa.org Greater Philadelphia Transportation Initiative Richard Voith 215-382-1894 voith@econsult.com Lower Merion Township Lewis Gould 215-979-1282 lfgould@duanemorris.com New Jersey Transit Ken Snapp 973-491-7817 ksnapp@njtransit.com LCOR Anthony Marchetta 212-760-0060 amarchetta@lcor-ny.com Landmark Communities Joel Schwartz 609-924-5527 schwarts@landmarkcompanies.net B. Attendees More than 150 people attended Phase Two of this exchange. XII. AGENDA Phase One Agenda For Destination 2030: The Future in Transit A Forum on Potential Transit Projects In the Nine-County Philadelphia Area Thursday, April 8, 2004 beginning at 8:00 AM At Loew’s Hotel, 12th & Market Streets, Philadelphia, PA 8:00 AM Registration 8:30 Intros, Vision, Criteria 9:00 Presentation of 7 Projects 10:00 Break 10:15 Presentation of 6 Projects 11:45 Lunch, Guest Panelists 1:00 PM 3 Breakout Groups 2:00 Break 2:15 Breakout Group Reports 3:15 Discussion 3:45 Conclusions 4:15 Closing Remarks Phase Two Destination 2030 The Future in Transit A Forum on Potential Transit Projects in the Delaware Valley Region June 16, 2004 12:00-6:00 Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia 12:00 PM – Lunch and Keynote Speakers What is the role of transit in a city and a region & how can we best move new projects forward? Allen Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Jack Lettiere, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Transportation Douglas Allen, Executive Vice President, Dallas Area Rapid Transit Maxine Griffith, Executive Director, Philadelphia City Planning Commission and Secretary for Strategic Planning, City of Philadelphia John Coscia, Executive Director, DVRPC, Moderator 2:00 – Regional Overview and Vision What are the trends and conditions in the Delaware Valley & how does transit enhance the region’s competitive future? Barry Seymour, DVRPC Assistant Executive Director for Regional Planning Don Shanis, DVRPC Assistant Executive Director for Transportation 2:30 – New Transit Ideas and Funding Options Do we upgrade the existing system, fill in the missing links, or extend service to the new development frontiers? Can we afford to do it all? Faye Moore, General Manager, SEPTA Richard Voith, Greater Philadelphia Transportation Initiative 3:00 – Break 3:15 – Transit-Oriented Development Opportunities Where are the available sites for new development in conjunction with transit services & how do we facilitate TOD? Carole Rubley, Pennsylvania House of Representatives Lewis F. Gould, Jr., Lower Merion Township Commissioner Ken Snapp, NJ Transit Anthony Marchetta, LCOR Joel Schwartz, Landmark Communities 4:30 – Voting and Priority Setting Participants will have an opportunity to cast their votes to recommend how the region should invest in its future. 5:00 – Transit-Oriented Development Marketplace and Networking Representatives of up to 20 communities from throughout the Delaware Valley will be present to highlight development opportunities associated with transit services and facilities. Join us for cocktails, to meet with your peers and community representatives, and to “See the Sites”.