MPIP
Gladfelter Hall
Temple University
1115 West Berks Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215) 204-9073 (tel)
(215) 204-7833 (fax)

Focus: Regional Rails as Community Asset

(click to print this report in pdf format)

MPIP/10,000 Friends Transportation Assets Project
The reliance on the private automobile as the choice of most Americans to meet their transportation needs has been linked to suburban sprawl, population losses in central cities, and the loss of green space (farmlands, grass- and woodlands, deserts) in urban regions new and old. MPIP has partnered with 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania to assess ways in which renewed attention to public transportation might generate regional collaboration on ways to more effectively use and expand this option as a tool for slowing the expansion of the region into exurban areas. This report focuses specifically on the ways in which the regional rail system can be seen as a community asset. It provides the background for a more extensive report, due out in the first quarter of 2008, which systematically assess the gains to property values, household budgets, and community vitality. We begin with a discussion of the regional transportation system, and then move on to consider the ways in which it fits within the population and employment patterns of the region, and close with some considerations of the promise offered by a focus on the regional rails network as a community asset.

Greater Philadelphia's transportation assets
Greater Philadelphia has an extensive, multi-modal transportation system that is a dynamic network of roads and rails (regional rails and light rail routes). Its roadways range from tool roads to interstate highways to limited access highways to a variety of major and minor roadways. These are the major arteries that enable the residents of the region to access employment, shopping, recreational opportunities, as well as simply getting from place to place.

As can be seen in the accompanying map of the region's major transportation assets (Map 1), the region's transportation network has two very different purposes that organize these routes. Older transportation lines and roads are oriented to the City of Philadelphia. Both the regional rail network and some of the major roadways link the communities surrounding the city (residential suburbs and older manufacturing centers) to the traditional commercial and transportation centers of the region within Philadelphia. But the region also has an extensive network of roads that serve the areas surrounding the city, with their new employment centers, industrial parks, and links to other mid–Atlantic destinations. Many of the interstates effectively by–pass the congestion that is found within the city, a pattern that has been the hallmark of the decentralized, post-industrial, and automobile dominated metropolitan regions of post 1950s America.

The dominant mode of transportation in the region is the private automobile. Nonetheless, a variety of transportation options are available to residents of this region. It has 2 regional transportation systems (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and New Jersey Transit), a major rail artery operated by the South Jersey Port Authority (PATCO), and a variety of specialized shuttles and bus links operated by municipalities, counties, businesses, non-profits, and local Transportation Management Associations (TMAs). A listing of these specialized transportation options is appended to this report, although we are also aware of a plethora of specialized senior/handicapped transportation services operating across the region that are not on this list, as well as many the campus-oriented shuttle operations provided by many educational institutions.

The funding of public transportation is a recurring debate within both state and federal legislative bodies, and has generated significant frictions within the regional body that governs SEPTA. The ongoing disputes about how to best allocate state and Federal transportation dollars divides the major urban centers of the state (Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) from the less urban areas that dominate state legislative bodies as well as its congressional delegation. Recent advances in generating a more stable funding base for public transit have been subsumed by debates over generating new public transit dollars from a proposed "tolling" of I80 across the largely rural northern tier of the state, with opponents charging that the state is being "taxed" to subsidize Philadelphia.

Private vs. public transportation use
When we look beyond the political context of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia is a metropolitan area that is more significantly engaged with public transportation than many others. As has been the case in past reports, MPIP uses 8 metropolitan areas to benchmark Philadelphia against. Three metropolitan areas (Boston, Chicago, and Minneapolis) are regions that have exhibited notable regional collaboration; while two others (Cleveland and Detroit) wrestle with the transition from manufacturing to postindustrial economies. Baltimore and Pittsburgh share many of the mid-Atlantic region's opportunities and constraints, and Phoenix represents the new urban direction taken by many areas that emerged as residential and business destinations as the Sunbelt matured.

Figure 1, which compares mass transit use across metropolitan areas (using 2005 American Community Survey data), shows that Philadelphia is in the upper third of this comparison group. Both Boston and Chicago indicate that over 11% of their residents use mass transit as the means of going to work. Philadelphia lags these at 8.8%, but is markedly higher than the remaining metropolitan regions. In Figure 2, we can see that the average length of the trips taken on public transit (for work as well as all other purposes) is significantly shorter. Because this indicator of use includes both travel to work and others (based on the National Transit Database for 2004), it suggests that public transportation is a necessary part of regional transportation options for many routine, short-rage trips.

While Philadelphia ranks relatively high in its use of mass transit as a means of getting to work, this transit option is in the clear minority of options available to most residents. In looking at the national trend from 1990 to 2000, for instance, even car pooling has declined in its share of commuting choices, while people driving alone increased by almost 5%. This increased share of for single car ridership was gained at the expense of all other modes of transportation save one—nationally, the use of regional rails increased in absolute terms and maintained itself with a slight up-tick in its share , from 2.2 to 2..3%. In the Philadelphia region, this choice is reflected in Table 2, where SEPTA's rail ridership from 2003 to 2005 is displayed. Weekly rail ridership increased by more than 6% over these two years, suggesting that this is a vital part of the region's transportation options.

Go to Greater Philadelphia's transportation assets
Go to Private vs. Public tansportation use
Go to Regional rails: which communities are served?
Go to The workplace–residence link
Go to Transportation costs: the household/community dimension
Go to Regional challenges and public transit
Go to Moving beyond subsidy: regional rail as a community asset
Go to Top

Regional Rails: which communities are served? Rails serve established communities
If we focus on the regional rail system by overlaying on the region, and especially compare it to the patterns of population growth, we see the challenge faced by a fixed route system in a spatially expanding metropolitan region. Map 2 displays the regional rail network over a mapping of population changes from 1970 through 2004, a point of tension becomes clear. First, the regional rail system is extensively developed across the region (New Jersey has a limited network of PATCO's high-speed line, New Jersey Transit's Atlantic City line, and the new DRPA light rail route from Camden to Trenton).The regional rail network in Pennsylvania extends across all counties, and is especially dense (each dot represents a ¼ mile perimeter around each station stop) in the close in suburbs of Delaware and Montgomery counties, as well as into lower Bucks County.

The map also shows that the greatest population growth since 1970 has occurred in communities that lie on the outer ring of the metropolitan area. These are communities that are largely served by the network of roads, not rails. These auto centered areas are clear residential choices for a part of the region's population, while the regional rail system operates within a footprint that has its roots, for the most part, in late 19 th century suburban development.

The challenge facing public transit is how to offer viable alternatives to single use automobiles, through road to rail links (e.g. expanded parking, "kiss and ride" options, etc.) and collaboration with local shuttle systems. The challenge for advocates of sustainable development and limits on sprawl is complementary—how to advocate for land use planning and community revitalization strategies in the central city and inner-ring suburbs, building on the asset base represented by the regional rail network. While it is probably beyond the scope of any single advocate to reverse the long-term love affair with the automobile as a transit solution, the increased costs of gasoline, the limited availability of alternative fueled vehicles, and the dispersed nature of employment and retails centers suggests that this will remain an issue that will demand attention.

Go to Greater Philadelphia's transportation assets
Go to Private vs. Public tansportation use
Go to Regional rails: which communities are served?
Go to The workplace–residence link
Go to Transportation costs: the household/community dimension
Go to Regional challenges and public transit
Go to Moving beyond subsidy: regional rail as a community asset
Go to Top

The Workplace–residence link
To look at the specific issue that is presented by the journey to work, we have developed a series of maps that demonstrate both the opportunities and the challenges facing the regional rail network. In the first set of maps (Map 3), we have displayed the major employment centers of the metropolitan area, using the density of employees per square mile across the region's communities. Philadelphia's continued presence as a major employment center is evident, as are the communities in the inner ring communities of Delaware, Montgomery and Bucks counties in Pennsylvania, and in both Camden and Burlington counties in New Jersey. While many of these communities are accessible from the regional rail system, many are not, especially in the more distant suburbs of Chester and Burlington counties.

We have created these maps with a unique opportunity for the reader—to "toggle" on either the road system or a combined road-rail-shuttle map that demonstrates where the more extensive transportation network lies. Of particular note is the extent to which the hybrid system of public regional transportation, local public transit and private shuttle systems has begun to respond to the demand for supplemental alternatives to single ridership in private automobiles.

For a useful point of reference, we have also provided supplementary maps of retail (Map 4a) and recreational opportunities (Map 4b). These maps, which shift the focus of the discussion slightly, demonstrate a similar pattern of concentrated destinations in areas that are theoretically accessible to the regional rail network, but also point to areas that lie beyond its reach. They are included to remind the reader that not all uses of the regional rail network need to be subsumed under the category of the journey to work.

We are also aware of the particular challenge represented by the impact on a community of receiving a host of daily "visitors" when they are a major locus of employment opportunities. While the economic opportunity for municipalities that is represented by commercial ratables is significant, these communities also face significant levels of road maintenance, limitations on residential and parkland development, and simple traffic burdens that can not be ignored. A commuting "inflow/outflow" map indicates the concentration of these communities in the region.

This map (Map 4c) amplifies the more concentrated pattern of employment centers seen earlier. What emerges form this map is the extensive set of communities that lie well beyond the regional rail system that are commuting destinations for residents that live outside that community. It demonstrates what MPIP has noted in other reports, namely that we face significant "job sprawl" in the region that outstrips residential sprawl. Adding to the challenges noted above is a clear message for transportation planners that seek alternatives to the use of the private automobile as a transit choice for these communities.

This employment driver of regional development brings into clearer focus the specific challenge faced by inner-ring suburbs and former manufacturing centers in the counties surrounding Philadelphia. While this is discussed somewhat in examples below, it should be noted that the growth of areas beyond the scope of the regional rail system presents a special challenge for communities that developed along the regional rails lines of the region. As centers of employment, retail and recreational activities expand beyond these older communities, they face significant pressures to adapt to the changing economic and demographic realities by redefining and revitalizing themselves.

Transportation Costs: The household/community dimension
As legislative and policy debates proceed over public funding for transportation, either through the roadways or through public transportation systems, the hidden costs to households and communities of transportation choices are frequently ignored. This question has been the focus of a joint Brookings/Virginia Polytechnic Institution/Center for Neighborhood Technology effort to estimate these costs as a component of this debate.

MPIP has been able to obtain information that is specific to the Philadelphia region to estimate these costs.* Map 5 displays the regional picture of these expenditure presents a combined housing + transportation cost based on linking housing costs for each municipality to the specific mix of homeowners and renters found within each community, and then estimating the housing costs for the modal household in each community—based on number of automobiles, estimated miles traveled (extrapolated from the National Transportation Survey) and localized estimates of insurance and maintenance payments for the Philadelphia region, as well as public transportation fares.

The logic of combining transportation and housing costs is driven by the basic principle of housing markets—location drives the bidding for houses and the price/costs of that housing. Too often, transportation costs are the hidden face of this transaction. The spatial pattern that emerges across the region is largely unsurprising. Communities within Philadelphia and in its surrounding counties demonstrate the lowest housing/transportation cost estimate. To a significant degree, the presence of the regional rail system in inner ring suburbs is associated with these lower costs. To convert these to annualized income estimates, a monthly cost estimate of $775 (the lowest cost category) would correspond to 40% (using a combination of housing affordability at 30% of income + an additional 10% for transportation) of an income of $23,250. The next higher category, which tops out at $916/month, corresponds to an annualized income of $27,480 at the 40% level. While these income levels do not begin to address the substantial cost burdens experienced by low and very low income households, they do suggest that regional rails can play a significant part in linking regional economic opportunities to communities that would benefit from them.

*These are data that were first reported in Where We Stand, 2005 , and have been adapted for this report. They are being updated for future use by MPIP and 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania.

Go to Greater Philadelphia's transportation assets
Go to Private vs. Public tansportation use
Go to Regional rails: which communities are served?
Go to The workplace–residence link
Go to Transportation costs: the household/community dimension
Go to Regional challenges and public transit
Go to Moving beyond subsidy: regional rail as a community asset
Go to Top

Regional challenges and public transit
The material we have presented thus far has highlighted three regional challenges hat are linked to public transportation: sprawl, the spatial disconnect between work and residence, and the fate of older, inner-ring suburbs. The first two of these might well be addressed by a strategy that is already present in the region, at least to some degree, but has largely grown without coordination. Specifically, a focus on purposeful links between rail lines or other transit terminals and employment centers offers some promise as a component of both anti-sprawl activities and more effective connections between residential and employment centers.

The concept of sprawl is based on the spatial expansion of both business and residential centers that primarily depend upon the expansion of the existing road network of the region. It occurs in the absence of economically viable alternatives. Any expansion of public or hybrid transportation networks will need to focus on the ways in which these networks create cheaper, dependable choices for households facing a residential decision in the face of spatially expanding employment centers.

This strategy has implications for the spatial disconnect that challenges workers seeking access to employment opportunities that are currently out of reach. Focusing on improving the number and routes that link to regional rails or transportation termini is actually a dual challenge: one of access and one of persistence. Intelligent planning of transit assets that build on the exiting network will need to stress improved access, but also will need to focus on the needs/demands of both current and potential workforces.

The remaining challenge is one focused on community revitalization that is transit-based. The past several years have witnessed a growing recognition of the uneven abilities of older, inner-ring suburbs to meet the obligations of maintaining their physical infrastructure, schools, public safety agencies, and their economic base. Many of these communities grew and prospered because of their proximity to either regional rails or light rail lines, only to dwindle in size and economic well-being in the era of increased automobile use. Given that many of these were effectively "land-locked" by their municipal boundaries, and had few options available to them in terms of linkages to major highways, this has been a challenge that has driven several communities to consider transit based development and revitalization opportunities.

The heart of this strategy builds on improving access to public transportation—especially regional rail options—to re-establish the identity of the community as a destination of choice for both residents and businesses serving these communities and their environs. While building on the preservation of affordable housing, it focuses on a related principle—assisting the housing investments of these community's residents by helping maintain and appreciate the value of existing housing.

This strategy effectively integrates transit access into community development opportunities, especially for economically challenged, but still viable communities. This is especially true for some of the older urban centers and inner ring suburbs. We suggest three examples of this type of effort that are in the process of development, and provide useful links for those interested in pursing these in greater detail.

Neighborhoods now: transit-oriented development in urban neighborhoods
http://www.neighborhoodsnowphila.org/news/?id=10
In a recent report prepared by economists from Econsult Corporation, Neighborhoods Now, a Philadelphia nonprofit organization developing market-driven programs for Philadelphia's low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, proposed that new initiatives be developed that focused on the rich set of assets represented by the city and region's transportation system. The report showed that Philadelphia and the region lagged initiatives taking place in other areas across the country that sought new, innovative ways to use transit-oriented development (TOD) to revitalize their communities through increased social capital, a better of quality of life in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, and increased economic development. It specifically suggested the aggressive implementation of Transit Related Improvement Districts ( TRIDs) and of Transit Oriented Development zoning overlays to support reinvestment, linked to affordable housing initiatives. The report also suggests that this is a process that will depend upon a strong collaboration between communities, the transportation system, and local government.

Marcus Hook: community development in a manufacturing suburb
http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/07030.pdf
Marcus Hook, a suburban borough along the Delaware River south of Philadelphia, sought and obtained (in 2002) a $68,000 Transit Centered Development Initiative (TCDI) grant that served as a basis for adopting a TOD zoning district for the area around the regional rail station. In 2004 a second TCDI predevelopment grant of to revitalize a large, vacant site near the station. Marcus Hook is currently working with Pennrose Properties on a proposal for 120 residential units with a mix of rental and for-sale units on this site. Subsequently, Marcus Hook also received a $60,000 TRID grant from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to further support its planning efforts. By working with DVRPC, SEPTA, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, private developers and a non-profit (The Pennsylvania Environmental Council), the borough is taking the next steps in developing financial projections necessary to establish the TRID and move forward with the project.

Collingswood: revitalizing Main Street to anchor an older suburb http://www.collingswood.com/government/special-projects
Collingswood, an older suburb in New Jersey with a previously declining retial center along Haddon Avenue, used the concept of a "transit village" (a term developed within the the New Jersey Department of Community and Economic Development) to coordinate its revitalization efforts. An empty lumber yard was used as a site for residential development in support of retail improvements that had begun in the communuty, but would benefit from residential development. The Lumber Yard condominium complex, the first phase of Collingswood's TOD plan, is located along Haddon Avenue within blocks of the Collingswood PATCO Station. Following the principle of linking modes of transit, and New Jersey Smart Growth initiatives that encourage growth on already developed land rather than clearing new areas, current station parking areas will be reworked to replace and increase spaces.

Go to Greater Philadelphia's transportation assets
Go to Private vs. Public tansportation use
Go to Regional rails: which communities are served?
Go to The workplace–residence link
Go to Transportation costs: the household/community dimension
Go to Regional challenges and public transit
Go to Moving beyond subsidy: regional rail as a community asset
Go to Top

Moving beyond subsidy: regional rail as a community asset
Each of these examples build on principles of linking private, public, and community based efforts at community revitalization—and each begins with the fundamental assertion that the regional rails and transportation terminals are assets whose presence in a community can anchor revitalization. In a broader sense they suggest a fundamental policy perspective that we feel will benefit discussions of transportation and community revitalization alike. Specifically, the discussion about support for public transportation should not be limited to a discussion of subsidies, but about the ways to make place-based assets perform better in addressing larger community needs.

This shift in perspective will require an explicit commitment for organizations that are often not used to collaborative efforts to seek areas of complementarity, where transportation improvements are seen as a part of community development, and in which public sector entities partner with regional agencies, private developers, and community based organizations to pursue community and transportation improvements.

As an extension of this work, MPIP will be working with 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania to establish the benefits that accrue to communities that access the region's regional rail network. Preliminary analyses have been very promising, suggesting that the combination of improved housing values, reduced household budget obligations, promising revitalization strategies, and a better mix of residential and commercial properties in support of local tax bases. We expect this to be available in 2008.

(CLICK HERE) to contact MPIP with your comments