OSG Analysis on the Gloucester County Rail Line Study

1. OSG Analysis on the Gloucester County Rail Line Study State Planning CommissionDecember 3, 2008

2. DRPA Alternatives Analysis • For the past few years, DRPA has been conducting a study to assess the need for additional transit service in South Jersey • Five alternatives have been selected for analysis • DRPA is currently in the process of selecting the locally preferred alternative

3. The Alternatives • 5 Alternatives on 3 potential routes • NJ 42 • NJ 55 • Existing railroad • Two alternatives are based on variations of the routes • NJ 55 to existing rail • LRT option on existing rail

5. OSG Evaluation • OSG conducted an analysis of the areas around the alternatives • Alternatives were assessed for the potential to promote development and redevelopment in accordance with the objectives of the State Plan • OSG focused on the areas around proposed stations (1/2 mile circles) • The evaluation also incorporated smart growth concepts and sound planning principles

6. Alternatives • Route 42 Median • Route 55 Median • Route 55 to Existing Railroad • Existing Railroad • Existing Railroad as Light Rail • PATCO

7. Focus Areas • Half-mile radius from proposed stations • Half-mile is the accepted maximum distance the average person will walk to rail-based mass transit

8. State Plan • Serves Metropolitan and Suburban Planning Areas

9. Density • Darker green is denser residential • Density must come in a transit-oriented form

10. Reinvestment • Redevelopment Areas (solid orange) • Main Street Communities(dashed orange) • Brownfields(points) • Redevelopment Areas are post 2003 • Woodbury and Glassboro are MSNJ towns

11. Agriculture • Agricultural Land • Preserved Farmland (dark green) • The State is working to preserve agriculture, not encourage its development

12. Landscape Data • Presence of State Threatened and Endangered habitat • Development near these areas should not impact the existing habitat • Existing habitat will likely be fragmented or destroyed without planning or regulation

13. Wetlands • Development will be constrained in areas with wetlands • Runoff from new development will impact wetlands and water quality

14. Existing Rail Line • Alternatives #3/#4 will generate the potential for reinvestment in existing towns • Will support places of cultural and historic significance • Will serve concentrations of residential and commercial space

15. Revitalize the State’s Cities and Towns Conserve the State’s Natural Resources and Systems Promote Beneficial Economic Growth, Development and Redevelopment and Renewal for All Residents of New Jersey Protect the Environment, Prevent and Clean Up Pollution Provide Adequate Public Facilities and Services at a Reasonable Cost Provide Adequate Housing at a Reasonable Cost Preserve and Enhance Areas with Historic, Cultural, Scenic, Open Space and Recreational Value Ensure Sound and Integrated Planning and Implementation Statewide Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Dependence on Fossil Fuels Goals of the State Plan

16. Revitalize the State’s Cities • Service on the existing rail line will work to “reduce the barriers which limit mobility and access of city residents, particularly the poor and minorities, to jobs, housing, services and open space within the region.”

17. Conserve Natural Resources • A transportation investment would benefit conservation efforts if it works to promote ecologically sound development, supports the development and redevelopment of Centers, and leverages natural systems to control environmental degradation.

18. Promote Beneficial Economic Growth • The areas that will experience the most benefit from transit are those that are currently arranged in a land use pattern that is supportive of a transit service.

19. Prevent and Clean Up Pollution • Infrastructure service extensions through the existing towns would provide additional incentives to those looking to redevelop a brownfield.

20. Provide Adequate Public Facilities • Alternative #3/#4 has a higher projected ridership and would be accessible to many more residents and destinations than Alternatives #1 and #2.

21. Provide Adequate Housing • Service on the existing rail line would greatly increase the accessibility of those eligible for affordable housing. • Transportation costs are roughly half of the national average in areas with reliable and frequent transit service.

22. Enhance Historic & Cultural Value • The downtowns and historic districts of Woodbury, Wenonah, Pitman and Glassboro would be within a short walk from the stations on Alternatives #3/#4.

23. Sound and Integrated Planning • The citizens of New Jersey should know that their money is being put to work on the most productive alternative available.

24. Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Transportation accounts for one-third of New Jersey’s greenhouse gas emissions. • Ridership on Alternatives #3/#4 would not be entirely automobile dependent.

25. With an investment of this magnitude,are we content with simply improving the daily commute?

26. Park-and-Ride • DVRPC projects that jobs in Philadelphia will decrease over the next thirty years • The preferred alternative must serve some New Jersey destinations • Mirror existing PATCO, a mix of towns and park-and-ride

27. Single Purpose • A rail investment of this magnitude cannot serve a single purpose • The Alternative that serves the most people for the lowest cost should be the preferred Alternative • Inefficient if hauling empty cars back after rush hour

30. Rowan Pitman Underwood Woodbury Reinvestment • The SDRP encourages reinvestment in the State’s Cities and Towns • The towns along Alternatives #3/#4 would benefit from rail and have a development pattern conducive to mass transit

33. Conclusion • A rail service that would provide reliable and efficient service to the large population and employment base near the existing rail line is essential to future growth in the region. • Restoring service on the existing rail line would reduce congestion within the region and encourage reinvestment in existing communities. • Alternatives #3 and #4 would act to link communities and serve as the backbone of the region, a concept that is incompatible with a commuter-oriented, park and ride service.