HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


View Poll Results: Is SEPTA doing a great job in regards to bus, subway, and commuter rail overall??????
YES 56 48.70%
NO 59 51.30%
Voters: 115. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted May 26, 2009, 10:15 PM
volguus zildrohar's Avatar
volguus zildrohar volguus zildrohar is offline
I Couldn't Tell Anyone
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The City Of Philadelphia
Posts: 15,988
New York City has high capacity rail lines because New York City can support them. These three track lines were not built for possible express service - they provided such service when they were built. And once again, you're not going to find such high capacity layouts in most cities because they do not have the passenger density. WMATA, MBTA and BART each carry more passengers yearly than SEPTA does but interestingly they all carry fewer passengers per mile than SEPTA does despite having much more extensive service areas. I'd need to see evidence that these systems operate at crush capacities proportional to that in New York but I doubt they do - Philadelphia certainly doesn't. That what makes the difference. Today, nobody is going to build something on the possibility that someone is going to ride it someday. Subways today are not built to draw people, they're built where people are drawn which is why all the new systems are being built in the Southwest and nothing is being built here.

As you insist on complaining about things that never were, I insist on being pragmatic in noting that the existing imperfect sytem does work and if it didn't no one would use SEPTA.

That being said, I'm no SEPTA apologist and if you've paid attention to any of 13,000+ plus posts I've made on this forum over the past seven years you would be aware of that. There is nothing but sorrow to be found when looking at the proposal maps and diagrams that have been made for the system that never existed here but wishing that things were different will not make it so. Taking note of some realities will temper ideas on how to expand and improve the system. It isn't enough to make it easier for people to get downtown at high speed from a node on the edge of the city. There are four million people in the suburbs who we'd all like to have come into Philadelphia more often than they do but I can also tell you that there are a million and a half people in the city of Philadelphia who would certainly see their transit system in a different light if it made the experience of getting around Philadelphia more easy. Right now, I'm more interested in late night service, more frequent service on arterial rail and bus routes and higher capacity service, in whatever form that takes, on such routes. Those are realistic solutions to improving the transit situation in this city because that is what federal money is going to pay for. Not adding tracks to a subway line that has existed for 102 years and isn't adding the necessary number of passengers, not rail routes to an entertainment complex that does not exist, not connecting a new subway line to an overutilized route as opposed to an underutilized one that already has the physical capacity for it built into it.

I appreciate and respect your passion for making things better (in the old days on SubTalk I used to say the very same things), but age, reading and listening to the people who plan, build and ask for the money for these sorts of things tends to temper ones fervor. We can always dream but in Philadelphia in this day and in this condition much of what exists has to be improved before it can be built upon. Putting granite counters in a dilapidated house makes little sense - fix the house first.
__________________
je suis phillytrax sur FLICKR, y'all

Last edited by volguus zildrohar; May 26, 2009 at 10:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted May 27, 2009, 2:55 PM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,464
Look, Volguus, if you've ever riden the 47 to 5th and Godfrey, during rush hours, it's always packed, ALWAYS!!! Same for the 18 from Fox Chase to Broad and Olney. Another subway line would've been splendid along 5th St. I just don't believe in having one N-S line and an E-W line in a city w/ 1.5 million people.

If you remember why the NYC Subway was built in the early 20th century, most of it was for real estate, especially in Brooklyn. If Robert Bacon was smart enough, he could've incorporated subway service as well as wide roads towards his plans to the NE, but for some strange reason, that never happened.

I'll admit that the MFL works, but it's still a major dissapointment, IMO. No express service??? Please don't get at me for Philly not being a bigger city than NYC and Chicago. Sometimes I wish the politicians for the early 19th century would get their heads out their asses and realize what they could've had instead of the rampant graft which stunted the subway systems's growth. I would've liked to have seen PRR compete with PRT as far as subways is concerned. They were the richest railroad, anyways, so building a subway in Phila should be nothing!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted May 28, 2009, 1:13 AM
kilbride102 kilbride102 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NE Philly
Posts: 229
The main focus for SEPTA should be encouraging more people to use the system in the first place and try to change perceptions of it. As unfair as it may be, the disaster of last years world series parade will linger in people's minds when they make their transportation choice. Lets be real. The poor are forced to use SEPTA in the city and they will always need to use SEPTA so SEPTA need not worry about that customer base. They need to get people who have the option of driving or using SEPTA to choose public transit and that will require SEPTA to change people's perceptions of it.

Secondly, SEPTA needs to begin making money and not rely on state funding that if I am not mistaken is not dedicated soley to SEPTA. If this means service cuts, limiting coverage, or raised fares - so be it. They cannot continue to be a money drain on the city and state. SEPTA needs to be self sustaining. SEPTA should focus on profitable routes and maximize that opportunity. Here is an example. 95 is always a mess south in the moring and north in the evening. If most of these driver's come from North of Woodhaven, then SEPTA should be encouraging people to use the Cornwell Park and Ride. Make the fare one dollar, have a train every five minutes, or express service to 8th and market. Do anything you can to get people off 95 and into your trains.

After you have converted people to public transit users and you are making a profit, then you can look to build out your system and expand
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted May 28, 2009, 2:15 AM
volguus zildrohar's Avatar
volguus zildrohar volguus zildrohar is offline
I Couldn't Tell Anyone
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The City Of Philadelphia
Posts: 15,988
1) wanderer, I ride packed buses all the time. Try getting a seat on the 48 anywhere south of Girard Avenue before 9pm. Or the outbound 21 just about anytime or the 33 anytime. A crowded bus does not mean the route is operating beyond capacity - it means it's most likely operating at capacity. These routes may be heavily traveled but do the number of current and prospective passengers justify the expenditure of capital and resources to build a subway line? If a certain bus came four times an hour instead of two times an hour would those buses still be crowded? I'm going to grant you that if any bus routes in this city would be candidates for a rail route, the 47 would be ranked high among them but there is a threshold that must be met. There is an unused rail tunnel that parallels The Parkway that sits derelict and unused for, among other reasons, unjustifiable passenger projections for the first service proposed for it. Now, if SEPTA got serious and altered the route maybe that would get the fed's attention.

2) Why would you have liked to have seen the PRR build municipal subways? Many subway systems from that era that exist today were built to specifications specifically to prevent standard railroad equipment from operating on their systems. It's one of the reasons The El is broad guaged.

3) The New York Subway was built when New York City was physically growing and there weren't federal standards to meet for getting subways built because the federal government didn't build any subways in 1904. They were private investments made by private companies. That isn't the reality today - there is no private consortium that's going to build the Roosevelt Blvd subway or anything else anywhere.

Additionally, this city is built up. If Ed Bacon (or Robert Moses?) weren't tackling urban planning at a time when the car was the wave of the future and you could get money only to dismantle a railroad, Northeast Philadelphia would be a completely different place. As such, that didn't happen. The only infrastructure we have from that era are highways because that's all anyone wanted to build. Check a list of subway system openings - you'll notice a sizeable time gap between WWII and the start of the urban renewal movement of the 60's. What happened in between that time? Not trains.

I'm as unhappy about the lack of comprehensive rail transit in this city as you clearly are. I can and have (and sometimes do) imagine what some parts of Philadelphia would be like with a subway running directly there from somewhere else but since imagining is all I can do and I'm not inclined to make any more fantasy maps I think about what does exist, what works about it, what could be better, learn what's being talked about and send the occassional letter off to Senator Specter. Being mad about something that never happened requires much more energy than it's worth.
__________________
je suis phillytrax sur FLICKR, y'all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted May 28, 2009, 12:21 PM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,464
What I meant about the PRR investing during the turn of the century was to build a separate subway system in Phila, not connect it with it's main railroad system.


I'd say tht the beauty of the NYC and the Chicago systems is that they both use the same track gauge (4ft 8 1/2 in). In addition, Chicago's loop made all the train systems in that city compatible by using this track gauge as well as making sure the car widths were the same.

In NYC, the track gauge is the same, but IRT cars would be too narrow if if entered the IND or BMT system and vice versa for the IND and BMT cars if it happened to try to enter the IRT system. In other words, the width of the cars is the only difference.

In Philly, you'd have a problem if you tried to put the MFL cars in to the BSL system, and this is a huge mistake on PRT's part because not only is the track gauge not compatible, but so isn't the width of the MFL cars (111 in to the BSL's 121 in). The city of Phila should've made the PRT at least make both their lines compatible using the same track gauge and the same type of subway car. The system we got isn't just inefficient, it's also unorganized when it comes to rolling stocks as well.

And if you thought that the MFL didn't have spur lines, didn't you know that it spured from 2nd St to Walnut St. And NYC was building subways all the way into the late 50's until the fed gov't decided that cars, not trains, were the way to go in America. Chicago was expanding it's system during the 70's (the O'hare extension) and as recently during the 90's (Midway extension). Boston plans on expanding it's Fairmount line, and LA is still constructing it's subway. I don't see what Philly is doing for theirs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted May 28, 2009, 12:40 PM
orulz orulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 583
Out of curiosity, what are the platform height of MFL and BSL?

Also, what is the track gauge of PATCO ? Loading gauge/vehicle width?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted May 28, 2009, 12:51 PM
theWatusi's Avatar
theWatusi theWatusi is offline
Resident Jackass
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Your Mom's House
Posts: 11,702
wanderer,

The PRR didn't build subways because the money in railroading is in hauling freight not people. This is why UP, BNSF, CSX, NS, and others are doing quite well financially today, but Amtrak and commuter railroads need to beg for money every year. If the PRR, NYC, RDG and other fallen flags where not bound by regulations to continue to operate passenger service over non-profitable routes, one could argue that they'd still be around today.

I don't see what the difference in gauges has anything to do with the quality of service on SEPTA. What do you want to do, run a train from 69th st to Fern Rock?
__________________
"...remember first on me than these balls in airports" - MK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted May 28, 2009, 3:21 PM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,464
I think with being on a computer, it's harder to communicate my thoughts. What i meant was that by the MFL using a different grade than the Route 100 and the BSL, it's going to be harder for certain trains to get through. Looking at the SEPTA map, it would be a possibility if Route 100 could be joined to the MFL at 69th St, if both gauges on those lines were the same, but that's not the case with the MFL, plus you wouldn't need to get out of the fare zone anyways if you wanted to go from West Philly to Norristown, meaning you could catch the Route 100 from 69th St on the same platform!!!

If not the PRR, then I would've liked to have maybe seen another independent company compete w/ the PRT, just because it would be interesting too see another subway system in Philly. I can understand what you're saying. NYC and Chicago had similar systems, so I don't understand why Philly didn't. It was the third largest city during the early 20th century, and there was money, but the city squandered the money and we're left with a relatively small system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted May 29, 2009, 3:43 AM
volguus zildrohar's Avatar
volguus zildrohar volguus zildrohar is offline
I Couldn't Tell Anyone
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The City Of Philadelphia
Posts: 15,988
orulz, PATCO runs on standard guage and it's specs are identical to NYC's IND/BMT lines and the Broad Street Subway. I'm not too sure about platform heights but I know the car floor height for the El cars is ~42 inches.

wanderer,

A) If for some strange reason one wanted to have a busy high capacity city subway line stop at the same platform as a lower capacity light rail line such as at 69th Street Terminal you'd first have to completely remodel the terminal. The El platforms are a good 20 feet below and ten feet west of the Route 100 platform.

B) What is now the Route 100 was formerly an interurban rail line which was built with the intention of carrying people between cities not within them. Could you imagine taking a train from Chicago to Denver and then having that same train operate local service within the city of Denver like a subway? It was built to standard guage because it was connected to the national network when it was built.

C) I don't know if you've ever ridden the 100 but there are no barriers between the platform and the front door of the terminal. Fares are collected aboard the cars like they are aboard other trolleys and buses so even if they stopped at the same platform as The El you'd still have to pay extra to go to Norristown. You'd be hard pressed to find a system in this country that lets you pay a flat rate to go from the central city to the suburbs like that and don't tell me Chicago because Wilmette isn't as far away as Norristown is from Philadelphia.

D) There is another reason NYC's A-Division trains can't share routings with B-Division trains and it has nothing to do with the width of the cars or the tunnels but it does have something to do with the trackbed. Do you know what it is?

E) Chicago gets lots of things of things built because it's a benevolent dictatorship. The extensions to the airports occurred not because of some divine providence bestowed upon Chicago but because someone figured out it may be smart to link two of the the nation's busiest airports to the central area of the city they served. In terms of infrastructure, think of Chicago as New York with no tunnels. L.A.'s system is growing because the city itself is growing and passed the point where a subway system became necessary decades ago.

F) Boston runs completely different rolling stock on all of their heavy rail lines too.

It's true.

G) What exactly is your plan of action with all this rage you have for things that were never built? Do you believe there is some conspiracy against Philadelphia? There are definite factors that determine now, as then, the types of things that get built in a city. No one who has authority over such things cares about what is or isn't on a map. They're concerned with moving the people they have to move and make big plans with money when they have it which, depending on where you are, may be rare.
__________________
je suis phillytrax sur FLICKR, y'all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted May 29, 2009, 12:58 PM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar View Post
wanderer,

A) If for some strange reason one wanted to have a busy high capacity city subway line stop at the same platform as a lower capacity light rail line such as at 69th Street Terminal you'd first have to completely remodel the terminal. The El platforms are a good 20 feet below and ten feet west of the Route 100 platform.
That's what I'd like to see, thank you!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar View Post
B) What is now the Route 100 was formerly an interurban rail line which was built with the intention of carrying people between cities not within them. Could you imagine taking a train from Chicago to Denver and then having that same train operate local service within the city of Denver like a subway? It was built to standard guage because it was connected to the national network when it was built.
You're right. That line actually traveled all the way to Allentown!!! But I wasn't asking for distance service, but rather simple local train service in the Main Line. I understand that the Route 100 runs parallel to the R5 Main Line, and I also see that the Route 100 is more popular with college students from Villanova as well while the Main Line more popular for businessmen since it goes directly to CC. The Chicago to Denver service you're talking about is way overexaggerated to me!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar View Post
C) I don't know if you've ever ridden the 100 but there are no barriers between the platform and the front door of the terminal. Fares are collected aboard the cars like they are aboard other trolleys and buses so even if they stopped at the same platform as The El you'd still have to pay extra to go to Norristown. You'd be hard pressed to find a system in this country that lets you pay a flat rate to go from the central city to the suburbs like that and don't tell me Chicago because Wilmette isn't as far away as Norristown is from Philadelphia.
To be honest, Chicago is almost twice the size of Philly, and the Red Line in Chicago goes from the Loop to Howard, then a transfer to the Purple Line to Linden, a 14 mile ride. Taking the Route 100 from Norristown to Upper Darby, then transferring to the el to CC is an 18 mile ride. A four mile difference. A faster way might be the R6, which also takes about 18 miles from Norristown to CC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar View Post
D) There is another reason NYC's A-Division trains can't share routings with B-Division trains and it has nothing to do with the width of the cars or the tunnels but it does have something to do with the trackbed. Do you know what it is?
Actually I don't, but I do know that the widhts and the tunnels do vary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar View Post
E) Chicago gets lots of things of things built because it's a benevolent dictatorship. The extensions to the airports occurred not because of some divine providence bestowed upon Chicago but because someone figured out it may be smart to link two of the the nation's busiest airports to the central area of the city they served. In terms of infrastructure, think of Chicago as New York with no tunnels. L.A.'s system is growing because the city itself is growing and passed the point where a subway system became necessary decades ago.
And if Chicago's a benevolent dictatorship, then Philly is practically the opposite: every man for himself, and no care for the city or it's residents whatsoever!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar View Post
F) Boston runs completely different rolling stock on all of their heavy rail lines too.
True, but all the subway lines use the same track gauge, including the green line

Quote:
Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar View Post
G) What exactly is your plan of action with all this rage you have for things that were never built? Do you believe there is some conspiracy against Philadelphia? There are definite factors that determine now, as then, the types of things that get built in a city. No one who has authority over such things cares about what is or isn't on a map. They're concerned with moving the people they have to move and make big plans with money when they have it which, depending on where you are, may be rare.
I've actually done a lot of research and knowing me, I've always proposed my subway system on this board since I first logged in a couple of years. And right now, SEPTA isn't really concerned about providing quality subway service. They're not even concerned about providing qualtiy commuter rail service. If so, they would've been serious about bringing back service to West Chester, Reading and the Lehigh Valley by now using some of the stimulus funds, but no word so far. Right now, that's all I'm looking for SEPTA. I still feel that as far as the subway is concerned, all plans for expansions should have been done a long time ago, when we first started to build the subways. That way we wouldn't have to whine about how NYC, Chicago, Boston, DC, and SF has superior mass transit and Philly has only fragments of it!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2009, 2:45 PM
CrazyFinger CrazyFinger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 23
[IMG][/IMG]



Just for fun, about 5 years ago.... I made this map of what Philadelphia's rapid transit system might have looked like if it was built according to Merritt Taylor's recomendations. The map is what the system might have come to be by the 1970s. The research was conducted by a a staff member at Phila. University who's identity I will keep anonymous. I also took some time and went down to the archives building and did some research.

Some places where I strayed from Taylor's plans are: Instead of the Blvd. Line going all the way up the Blvd, I had it go up Castor Ave at Oxford Circle. Another example would be, the alignment of the Roxborough line. Taylor wanted this line to use 29th street. I instead have it using Ridge Ave all the way to Allegheny, using Henry for a short stretch, then again using Ridge. As for the Market Street trunk, I have shown here the Frankford line tied in with a line to Darby via Woodland Ave. Taylor wanted the Darby-Frankford(Holmesburg) line to use a seperate subway under Chestnut... I instead omitted the Trolley subway and made Market Street a 4track line to 4th street. The peak express service on the Holmesburg end is possible due to a 3 track elevated....

Since the loop is in use with 3 seperate lines, PATCO on this map uses a tunnel under the loop.... In a real world situation, PATCO probably would have used a different ROW, or may not have been built in the first place....Had this plan been built.

Whjat is intersting, is this, if this system had been built.... It would be bigger in both track miles and route miles than Chicago.

This is a fantasy map.... so please don't flame we with impossibilities...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2009, 3:16 PM
CrazyFinger CrazyFinger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34 View Post
What I meant about the PRR investing during the turn of the century was to build a separate subway system in Phila, not connect it with it's main railroad system.


I'd say tht the beauty of the NYC and the Chicago systems is that they both use the same track gauge (4ft 8 1/2 in). In addition, Chicago's loop made all the train systems in that city compatible by using this track gauge as well as making sure the car widths were the same.

In NYC, the track gauge is the same, but IRT cars would be too narrow if if entered the IND or BMT system and vice versa for the IND and BMT cars if it happened to try to enter the IRT system. In other words, the width of the cars is the only difference.

In Philly, you'd have a problem if you tried to put the MFL cars in to the BSL system, and this is a huge mistake on PRT's part because not only is the track gauge not compatible, but so isn't the width of the MFL cars (111 in to the BSL's 121 in). The city of Phila should've made the PRT at least make both their lines compatible using the same track gauge and the same type of subway car. The system we got isn't just inefficient, it's also unorganized when it comes to rolling stocks as well.

And if you thought that the MFL didn't have spur lines, didn't you know that it spured from 2nd St to Walnut St. And NYC was building subways all the way into the late 50's until the fed gov't decided that cars, not trains, were the way to go in America. Chicago was expanding it's system during the 70's (the O'hare extension) and as recently during the 90's (Midway extension). Boston plans on expanding it's Fairmount line, and LA is still constructing it's subway. I don't see what Philly is doing for theirs.
The reason the two trunk lines in Philly have different gauges are because 1- When the Market Street Line was built, it was built entirely with private funds. Even NYC's original IRT can't make this claim. PRT wanted it to be compatible with it's streetcar network, which it had every right to do. PRT, before dictator Mitten took over, had big plans of it's own... which were quite different from what Taylor envisioned. PRT had in the back of it's mind a huge subway-elevated sytem standardized to its specs. PRT did not not want to have the city build it's lines, and then pay huge trackage rights and have fares dictated like in NYC. But PRT soon found itself in no way able to build any more lines. By the time the Broad Street line was built, over 20 years later, relations between the city and PRT were to say the least, strained due mainly to the 1907 transit agreement, which PRT always regretted. When the BSS line was built, the BRT in NY was a good model to copy... And it is this model that the city copied to tee, track gauges and all. Even the car specs are the same.

PRT had no choice to operate Philadelphia's version of an IND subway... although it did not want to.... and it certainly resented allowing free transfers between the two lines.... Look up the 1907 agreement... It will answer alot of questions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2009, 3:46 PM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,464
I appreciate the intelligent answer, unlike VZ's response.

Did you know that the reason why NYC wanted a subway was to demonstrate the competing advantages of the subway over elevated tracks, so some of the earliest elevated tracks in Manhattan were torn down to make room for the new and improved subways.

Now if the city of Phila had it's own ways, they could've either purchased the line from PRT, then rebuilt the line according to it's specs instead of using the rail grade that the PRT was using for the MFL, as well as even adding two inner tracks for express service in accordance with the BSL. Just like how NYC built it's IND lines, we could've had the same for Philly.

No wonder the MFL doesn't have any express service!!! Although I believe that the Subway Surface trolleys are a major plus for Philly, the MFL is a huge dissapointment, IMO. The BSL, on the other hand, should be held to the highest regards !!! THe Route 100, the Norristown, and the Chestnut Hill lines could've eventually been a part of the subway system.

I also liked how you chose Castor Ave instead of running it through the whole length of the Blvd. The only thing about the BSL is that somehow, I always felt that Hunting Park Ave would've made the better express stop than Erie Ave, since it's more of a hub, IMO, with the Blvd on one end, and Belfield/Ogontz Ave on the other, plus there's a two-station gap with Olney and Lehigh/North Philly. With Erie, you have the one station gap w/ Lehigh and a three station gap with Olney. It's a big ineffiency, especially since these days, express service skips Lehigh.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2009, 5:58 AM
CrazyFinger CrazyFinger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastSideHBG View Post
Plan for Gloucester County commuter rail link to Phila. outlined

By Paul Nussbaum
Inquirer Staff Writer

New commuter rail service to link much of South Jersey to Philadelphia was the centerpiece of a $2 billion mass-transportation plan outlined yesterday by Gov. Corzine and transit officials.

Breathing new life into a long-discussed plan to restore rail service between Camden and Glassboro, Corzine promised, "Whatever it takes, we're going to get this done."

That plan calls for diesel light-rail trains to run 18 miles alongside an existing Conrail freight line to serve Glassboro, Pitman, Mantua, Wenonah, Woodbury, Deptford, West Deptford, Westville, Bellmawr, Brooklawn and Gloucester City. The line would connect to PATCO and River Line trains at the Walter Rand Transportation Center in Camden, where passengers could catch trains to Philadelphia or Trenton.

The mass-transit plan also calls for express bus lanes on highly congested Routes 42 and 55, and improved rail service on NJTransit's underused Atlantic City Line, with a passenger stop at PATCO's Woodcrest station in Cherry Hill.

The new light-rail line could be operational as far as Woodbury in five years and to Glassboro and Rowan University in six to 10, said John J. Matheussen, chief executive of PATCO and its parent, the Delaware River Port Authority. PATCO hopes to operate the trains, though that has not been determined.

South Jersey civic, business and labor leaders gathered outside Woodbury's 1883 train station to hail the promised return of passenger rail service after nearly a half- century.

"We hope this will bring things back to the way things were," said Woodbury Mayor Robert Curtis. "These were the original transit villages."

Corzine, who arrived at the gathering about 90 minutes late, noted that $500 million had been committed by the state for the plan, and he said he expected federal funding, as well.

The rail line to Glassboro is expected to cost about $1.3 billion, and Matheussen estimated the cost of express bus lanes on Routes 42 and 55 at $200 million. Costs for the Atlantic City rail line upgrades have not been determined, Corzine and transit officials said, but could run to $500 million or more.

Previous proposals to restore rail service to Gloucester County and beyond have never made it off the drawing boards. This time will be different, said the politicians who gathered yesterday.

"This is not the first time people have had their expectations raised," said U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews (D., Camden). "But this is the first time it is going to get done."

Matheussen said construction could start in 2010 or 2011 on the light-rail line. Hearings will be held, starting next month, around the region.

Studies still need to be done on bus rapid transit plans for Routes 42 and 55 and for improvements to the Atlantic City rail line. Even there, though, Corzine said construction would be years, "not decades," away.

The light-rail route unveiled yesterday was the one recommended by the state Office of Smart Growth and the state Planning Commission. DRPA planners had offered five alternatives along three routes.

Woodbury residents were generally optimistic about the promised return of trains to the Gloucester County seat.

"I think it's going to be good. It will raise up house values and maybe lower taxes with more people coming in," said D.N. Bunch, who was with his wife, Karin, on the sidewalk near the old station. "It'll be a lot easier to get to the sports venues in Philadelphia. And it'll take some cars off the road."

With two children, ages 6 and 14, Karin Bunch said she wanted to make sure they would be safe from passing trains.

"That's my only concern. This is a walking district," she said. "I want to know more about the safety."

Frank Fletcher, owner of the Nut House gift shop, said he hoped a return of passenger trains would do for Woodbury what they did for his old hometown on Long Island.

"Our property values were among the highest in the nation because we were an easy commute to New York," Fletcher said. "Here, we would be an easy commute to Philadelphia. And, as a shop owner, the more affluent my customers are, the more affluent I become."

Matt Wood, a student at Gloucester County College, said train service would make it easier to get to the Rutgers campus in Camden, where he hopes to transfer. And a station in Woodbury would speed his trips to Philadelphia, he said.

"Now, if I want to take the train to Philly, I have to drive to Ferry Avenue" in Camden. "But this is right in my back yard," Wood said.

Students and faculty at Rowan would also benefit, said college president Donald J. Farish.

"Now, you have to have a car," Farish said. "We don't want to have to pave the university. We will strongly encourage people to use the train. ... It might even be in our interests to subsidize the cost" of service.

Tony DeSantis, president of the Delaware Valley Association of Rail Passengers, said his group would have preferred electric trains that could have provided a "one-seat" ride to Philadelphia on PATCO without a transfer in Camden.

But he said, "If they can get the rails down here, that's a good thing. Really, they're just putting back what they took out. They're basically restoring what they had in the past, which was diesel service to Camden."

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/ho.../44862252.html
I am not impressed with, actually I am disapointed. Although they chose the correct ROW alignment... They are totally missing the boat on the mode of transport. This line should be built exactly like the Lindenwold line... No grade crossings, 3rd rail, high level platforms... etc. etc.

Not as many people will use it if they have to transfer in Camden. It seems like they are building it this way just so they can spend the money, not really worrying about potential ridership. I guess this means Conrail is say no trains after 9pm like on the River line, huh.... Total disapointment.... Pa should block this, on the grounds it does not serve Philadelphia's interests enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2009, 4:54 PM
EastSideHBG's Avatar
EastSideHBG EastSideHBG is offline
Me?!?
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Philadelphia Metro
Posts: 11,212
S. Jersey residents weigh rail, bus extensions

By Paul Nussbaum
Inquirer Staff Writer

When Gov. Corzine came to Woodbury's historic train station last month to announce his plan for a $1.3 billion light-rail line from Camden to Glassboro, the reception was warm and enthusiastic. Local, state, and national officials hailed the return of rail service as the route to prosperity, clean air, and smooth commutes.

But last week, when 125 area residents turned out at Woodbury Junior-Senior High School to examine the plans, the reaction was decidedly mixed.

Congestion, parking, crime, and costs were among the chief concerns voiced by opponents of the plan. "It's a waste of money," said Michele Tobin of Sewell. "I believe in public transportation, but I don't believe it needs to be for a small group of people in small towns. Where are people going to park in these towns to go to the light rail? That $1.5 billion should be put to better use. We need public transit to get to Philadelphia. We need better roads to go north."

Could it be 1996 all over again?

That was the year that Gloucester County opposition killed the Camden-Glassboro leg of a light-rail line that was to run from Trenton to Glassboro. The northern portion, ending at Camden, was completed in 2004 as NJ Transit's River Line.

This month, proponents and opponents of the southern rail line are squaring off again as the Delaware River Port Authority takes its latest plans on the road. Open houses were held in Camden and Woodbury last week; there will be sessions this week in Blackwood and Glassboro.

The new rail plan, similar to the 1996 plan, is the centerpiece of a $2 billion mass-transportation proposal for South Jersey backed by Corzine.

The port authority is the lead agency for the proposal, which also calls for express bus lanes on highly congested Routes 42 and 55 and improved service on NJ Transit's underused Atlantic City Line, with new passenger stops at PATCO's Woodcrest station in Cherry Hill and at the Atlantic City airport.

The rail plan envisions diesel light-rail trains running 17.4 miles alongside an existing Conrail freight line to serve Glassboro, Pitman, Mantua, Wenonah, Woodbury, Deptford, West Deptford, Westville, Bellmawr, Brooklawn, and Gloucester City. At the Walter Rand Transportation Center in Camden, the line would connect to PATCO trains to Philadelphia and River Line trains to Trenton.

The line would restore passenger service to a route where it was abandoned in 1971.

For supporters like Patrick Mulligan of South Harrison, the rail line would mean a chance to get out of his car for his daily trip to Camden, where he is assistant director of the Heart of Camden, a nonprofit housing redevelopment agency. "We need good commuter rail lines where people live," he said Thursday at the Woodbury session. "The future of transportation has to be trains, hopefully." He said the line would reduce pollution from cars and slow highway-induced suburban sprawl.

Rod Pello of Deptford, who runs an engineering office in Woodbury, said a rail line "would make recruiting employees a lot easier. Now, if they have to sit in a car for a long time to get here, there's a reluctance to do that."

Pello said a rail line could "rejuvenate a lot of towns like Woodbury" and increase residential property values. "Most businesspeople I know think it would be a very good idea," he said.

Larry O'Donnell, a cabinetmaker from Woodbury said he would "definitely" ride a local train, which he said he liked as an "environmentally friendly" alternative to driving.

"I use the PATCO High-Speed Line now to go to Philadelphia, but I have to drive to Woodcrest to get on it."

Opponents like Ron Brittin of Mantua Township have been down this path before.

Brittin, a Republican candidate for Gloucester County freeholder, was a leader in 1996 of Citizens for Alternative Rail, a group that opposed the light-rail plan.

"The draw for people here is Philadelphia, and this line doesn't go to Philadelphia. It goes to Camden. No one wants to go to Camden," Brittin said.

"This is being done to people in these towns by Trenton and Washington. That's what I'm going to talk about this election cycle."

Brittin and other opponents argue that any rail line should be built along Routes 55 and 42. The state Planning Commission considered those corridors but endorsed the current proposal as best for relieving highway congestion and revitalizing towns. Craig Rudisill, a retired teacher from Sewell, doesn't buy it. He said that "55 and 42 is where there is the need. This won't help in Washington Township, which is the biggest in the county."

Ken Atwood, who lives in Woodbury and works at a building-materials distributor in Camden, called the proposal "impractical."

"Going down Route 42 would have been better; that's where the congestion really is. But this was cheaper."

Stephen M. Sweeney, director of the Gloucester County freeholders and majority leader of the state Senate, said the politics of mass transit in the county had changed since 1996, making construction much more likely this time. "In 1996, everybody folded their tents and ran. Every elected official was running for cover," said Sweeney, a Democrat. "There was such a fear of the unknown."

He blamed the administration of Republican Gov. Christie Whitman for not fully supporting the earlier effort.

Now, Sweeney said, the River Line shows what light rail is all about, and Gloucester County residents can see what they would be getting.

Corzine, a Democrat, has committed $500 million from the state Transportation Trust Fund for the project, and Democrats dominate local government. "We're not running and hiding from them this time," Sweeney said of rail opponents.

Local opponents said they were counting on the backing of Christopher J. Christie, Corzine's Republican opponent in the governor's race this year. A spokeswoman for Christie said Friday that she did not know the candidate's position on the rail line.


More Information

To learn more about

the South Jersey transportation plan, visit www.patconjexpansion.com/rtedi.html

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/busin...xtensions.html
__________________
Right before your eyes you're victimized, guys, that's the world of today and it ain't civilized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2009, 8:33 PM
Qubert Qubert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 506
Volgous is right on the money. The simple, sorry truth is that even for the bare bones system we run now, not every train is packed. NY/Chicago/Boston/DC, etc all have something in in common that SEPTA lacks:

Choice riders.

in many areas of the 5 boroughs, taking the subway is the no-ish decision. It's fast, extensive, convenient/frequent and cheap. None of those things really apply to SEPTA outside the very inner core of Philly. Once outside the city itself, using transit for local trips simply isn't feasible on the frequencies and types of routes they run. The Regional Rail is pretty nice, but again, the frequencies are not good outside rush hour. The Sub is a joke, I work with people who live 5-6 blocks away from a BSS stop and never use it, the primary reason being crime/drama. The MFL is somewhat better, but outside of the very nabes it serves, is not genuinley accessable to the region.


Pile that on with late buses/trains, rude employees, and questionable saftey, it really isn't any wonder the transit system in philly is what it is. 99% of people with alternate means (read: car) will use them over SEPTA. It's sad, but it's the cold hard truth. Change the public image of transit and it will prosper....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2009, 1:42 AM
volguus zildrohar's Avatar
volguus zildrohar volguus zildrohar is offline
I Couldn't Tell Anyone
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The City Of Philadelphia
Posts: 15,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34 View Post
I appreciate the intelligent answer, unlike VZ's response.

Did you know that the reason why NYC wanted a subway was to demonstrate the competing advantages of the subway over elevated tracks, so some of the earliest elevated tracks in Manhattan were torn down to make room for the new and improved subways.

Now if the city of Phila had it's own ways, they could've either purchased the line from PRT, then rebuilt the line according to it's specs instead of using the rail grade that the PRT was using for the MFL, as well as even adding two inner tracks for express service in accordance with the BSL. Just like how NYC built it's IND lines, we could've had the same for Philly.

No wonder the MFL doesn't have any express service!!! Although I believe that the Subway Surface trolleys are a major plus for Philly, the MFL is a huge dissapointment, IMO. The BSL, on the other hand, should be held to the highest regards !!! THe Route 100, the Norristown, and the Chestnut Hill lines could've eventually been a part of the subway system.

I also liked how you chose Castor Ave instead of running it through the whole length of the Blvd. The only thing about the BSL is that somehow, I always felt that Hunting Park Ave would've made the better express stop than Erie Ave, since it's more of a hub, IMO, with the Blvd on one end, and Belfield/Ogontz Ave on the other, plus there's a two-station gap with Olney and Lehigh/North Philly. With Erie, you have the one station gap w/ Lehigh and a three station gap with Olney. It's a big ineffiency, especially since these days, express service skips Lehigh.
CrazyFinger seems to have given you exactly what you were looking for: fantasy visuals. I saw the map he created on railroad.net quite some time ago and it is a very good map - indeed I've posted it here and in Philly VII once or twice in the past. Anyone can take out a map and complan about the lack of a station here or a line there. I've never gotten the impression that you understood why there only two heavy rail lines, why it's unlikely that there will ever be more than two heavy rail lines unless this city undergoes some major changes - namely a huge population increase and job infusion - and why the current system, while les than ideal, is adequate for the number of people using the system and for the places they're going.

I also have to question your idea that Hunting Park makes a better express stop than Erie Avenue. Erie Avenue, the intersection of three major streets, a bus hub and a commercial corridor is less ideal than Hunting Park Avenue, which is less commercially dense at the street level, less pedestrian oriented and essesntially an interchange between Broad Street and Roosevelt Blvd. Really? If the Roosevelt Blvd line were ever to be built, it would make a bit more sense.

You're a very interesting case study. I'd invite you read any of my several lengthy responses to your previous posts in the event that you didn't get the point of what I've been saying this time - I'm not entirely sure you get it. You
do understand that it takes money to build something like a subway - tax money? You do understand that subways don't get built just because somebody wants one? You do understand that there isn't a single new subway line being built in a municipality with a declining population? You do understand that light rail/bus/BRT is not inherently inferior to heavy rail? You do understand that not every heavily traveled transit route needs to be a four track subway? You do understand that this is not New York City?
__________________
je suis phillytrax sur FLICKR, y'all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2009, 1:54 AM
volguus zildrohar's Avatar
volguus zildrohar volguus zildrohar is offline
I Couldn't Tell Anyone
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The City Of Philadelphia
Posts: 15,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qubert View Post
Volgous is right on the money. The simple, sorry truth is that even for the bare bones system we run now, not every train is packed. NY/Chicago/Boston/DC, etc all have something in in common that SEPTA lacks:

Choice riders.

in many areas of the 5 boroughs, taking the subway is the no-ish decision. It's fast, extensive, convenient/frequent and cheap. None of those things really apply to SEPTA outside the very inner core of Philly. Once outside the city itself, using transit for local trips simply isn't feasible on the frequencies and types of routes they run. The Regional Rail is pretty nice, but again, the frequencies are not good outside rush hour. The Sub is a joke, I work with people who live 5-6 blocks away from a BSS stop and never use it, the primary reason being crime/drama. The MFL is somewhat better, but outside of the very nabes it serves, is not genuinley accessable to the region.

Pile that on with late buses/trains, rude employees, and questionable saftey, it really isn't any wonder the transit system in philly is what it is. 99% of people with alternate means (read: car) will use them over SEPTA. It's sad, but it's the cold hard truth. Change the public image of transit and it will prosper....
I'll agree with that to a point. SEPTA is less of an option of last resort now than it was a decade ago. It needs a makeover like peanut butter needs jelly but anyone who has been a consistent rider for an extended period of time can't deny that the system is at least somewhat better than it used to be. There are several factors that would improve the SEPTA experience that are outside of its control - one being destinations. There are many places that are accessible via the system but not as well as they should be. The city being served has to be improved before all the things attached to it start to improve - a rising tide lifts all ships. SEPTA's fortunes sank with Philadelphia's and have and will rise as the city's does.

Brad Maule, myself and two other photographers did a one-day special on SEPTA last week on phillyskyline.com. I invite you to take a look.
__________________
je suis phillytrax sur FLICKR, y'all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2009, 3:22 PM
CrazyFinger CrazyFinger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar View Post
I've never gotten the impression that you understood why there only two heavy rail lines, why it's unlikely that there will ever be more than two heavy rail lines unless this city undergoes some major changes - namely a huge population increase and job infusion - and why the current system, while les than ideal, is adequate for the number of people using the system and for the places they're going.
Volguus, thank you for the compliment on my map, I would like to see the posts you made regarding it in other threads. Would be interesting to see what topics of discussion it help toshed light on. If you could, can you provide links?

In the above post, you are correct, it takes lots of money to build heavy rapid transit. This is the main reason why only the trunk lines were built in Philly, not a lack of demand. At one time (up until the 1960 census) Philly was the 3rd largest city in the USA, not to mention one of it's major metropolitan centers. What is interesting about that fact is, this was before the vast expansion into the northeast. At the turn of the century there was a desire to provide RT to existing sections of the city ie. Germantown and Roxborough as well as the southwest along Woodland.... But even so more than this, there was a bigger push to open up the northeast. Even before the Frankford el was built, the city wanted 2 RT lines to serve the northest, one being a Blvd line, and the other, some variation of the current Frankford line.... Some plans called for this line to go up Torresdale Ave at Erie since the Blvd and Frankford Ave are less than a mile apartin some places.

If you look on my map, you will notice a branch to the SW, the 5 train. This line was also desparetly wanted by the city to open up unsettled real estate. There is a reason, why land along Passyunk and Essington Aves is dominated by junk yards and mega car dealerships. Eastwick Meadows, the name this area was called back in the day, has always been plagued with very bad drainage problems. But before this problem was accurately realized, the city wanted to expand into this area, the same types of neighborhoods we see throughout the rest of the city. Since these neighborhoods would have been built in the teens, they probably would have resembled the neighboorhods along Woodland Ave.... Large, 3 bedroom rowhomes with small front yards, porches, ornate dormers and window boxes. Solid working to middle class was the intended demo, so direct access to Center City was needed, hense the 5 train.

Basically my point is, Philly could have supported every line on this map(leave out PATCO). Sure there might have been some station closures, but even if this system was in existence today, I am sure each branch would have at least 60,000 daily riders. Although those numbers aren't spectacular, they are enough to support a RT line. The lines to Bustleton and Roxborough and Darby would have even larger numbers. Believe it or not, one of the major stumbling blocks to building this system, was the debt on the City Hall construction bonds among other things, like a tight pocketed Republican government which didn't want to spend money....Not to mention a spiteful President Roosevelt who punished Philly during the depression for having a GOP government(the only large city at the time to have one).... She didn't get nearly as much federal aid as NYC and Chicago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2009, 3:37 PM
CrazyFinger CrazyFinger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar View Post
I've never gotten the impression that you understood why there only two heavy rail lines, why it's unlikely that there will ever be more than two heavy rail lines unless this city undergoes some major changes - namely a huge population increase and job infusion - and why the current system, while les than ideal, is adequate for the number of people using the system and for the places they're going.
Volguus, thank you for the compliment on my map, I would like to see the posts you made regarding it in other threads. Would be interesting to see what topics of discussion it help toshed light on. If you could, can you provide links?

In the above post, you are correct, it takes lots of money to build heavy rapid transit. This is the main reason why only the trunk lines were built in Philly, not a lack of demand. At one time (up until the 1960 census) Philly was the 3rd largest city in the USA, not to mention one of it's major metropolitan centers. What is interesting about that fact is, this was before the vast expansion into the northeast. At the turn of the century there was a desire to provide RT to existing sections of the city ie. Germantown and Roxborough as well as the southwest along Woodland.... But even so more than this, there was a bigger push to open up the northeast. Even before the Frankford el was built, the city wanted 2 RT lines to serve the northest, one being a Blvd line, and the other, some variation of the current Frankford line.... Some plans called for this line to go up Torresdale Ave at Erie since the Blvd and Frankford Ave are less than a mile apartin some places.

If you look on my map, you will notice a branch to the SW, the 5 train. This line was also desparetly wanted by the city to open up unsettled real estate. There is a reason, why land along Passyunk and Essington Aves is dominated by junk yards and mega car dealerships. Eastwick Meadows, the name this area was called back in the day, has always been plagued with very bad drainage problems. But before this problem was accurately realized, the city wanted to expand into this area, the same types of neighborhoods we see throughout the rest of the city. Since these neighborhoods would have been built in the teens, they probably would have resembled the neighboorhods along Woodland Ave.... Large, 3 bedroom rowhomes with small front yards, porches, ornate dormers and window boxes. Solid working to middle class was the intended demo, so direct access to Center City was needed, hense the 5 train.

Basically my point is, Philly could have supported every line on this map(leave out PATCO). Sure there might have been some station closures, but even if this system was in existence today, I am sure each branch would have at least 60,000 daily riders. Although those numbers aren't spectacular, they are enough to support a RT line. The lines to Bustleton and Roxborough and Darby would have even larger numbers. Believe it or not, one of the major stumbling blocks to building this system, was the debt on the City Hall construction bonds among other things, like a tight pocketed Republican government which didn't want to spend money....Not to mention a spiteful President Roosevelt who punished Philly during the depression for having a GOP government(the only large city at the time to have one).... She didn't get nearly as much federal aid as NYC and Chicago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:56 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.