Lansdale-Quakertown Corridor Alternatives Analysis

jrevans wrote: Having grown up in Western Pennsylvania (a.k.a. "the good side of the state"), we used to complain about our taxes being used to build stuff in filth-a-delphia, so I guess somebody decided to get even.
Thanks for informing me about this stuff. What a lame transportation funding situation we have in our commonwealth....

needless to say, people in the philadelphia area felt the same way about the rest of the state...namely that they were siphoning off money from the Philadelphia area to build projects in other parts of the state. it's really a shame that 80 wasn't built as a toll road as it was originally intended, then there would be no argument.
I suspect that the truth of the argument is that both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia subsidize most of the rest of the state but that often citizens get the short end of the stick no matter where they live, it's just easier to blame the other guy than harrisburg.

jrevans wrote:I have to admit that I wasn't really paying attention to the Act 44 stuff, besides the attempt to toll I-80 and lease/sell the turnpike. Wow, what a sucky deal for the turnpike, being forced to subsidize state-wide infrastructure.

Having grown up in Western Pennsylvania (a.k.a. "the good side of the state"), we used to complain about our taxes being used to build stuff in filth-a-delphia, so I guess somebody decided to get even.

Thanks for informing me about this stuff. What a lame transportation funding situation we have in our commonwealth....

If anyone's had a bad deal over tolls, it's the suburb-to-suburb commuters who use the Turnpike while their counterparts in most other parts of the state get their roads paid for from non-toll revenue (gas taxes and general funds). I won't necessarily defend the Turnpike though--my understanding is it's a patronage mill.

Matthew Mitchell wrote:--my understanding is it's a patronage mill.

I have read very much to support that statement. Needless to say, earmarking PTC funds to a particular transit project will be difficult at best. It would likely require the legislature to act, and we know what outstanding progress and foresight they've shown in the past 20 years towards long-term solutions.. (note the irony)
ACT 44 could have been a slam dunk to at least get I-80 off PennDot's budget, but it was designed in such a way that the Feds couldn't give it the approval... Once it fell apart, our state leadership simply ignored the problem.

ChrisinAbington wrote: ACT 44 could have been a slam dunk to at least get I-80 off PennDot's budget, but it was designed in such a way that the Feds couldn't give it the approval... Once it fell apart, our state leadership simply ignored the problem.

I really don't understand why the plan couldn't have easily been revised to simply have the tolls collected on I-80 remain with I-80, keeping the tolling plan "legal" so the money that would normally be used to maintain it could be used elsewhere. Something is better than nothing, right?

Needless to say, earmarking PTC funds to a particular transit project will be difficult at best.

Good point.

(Matthew Mitchell): If anyone's had a bad deal over tolls, it's the suburb-to-suburb commuters who use the Turnpike while their counterparts in most other parts of the state get their roads paid for from non-toll revenue (gas taxes and general funds).

You can say that again; I'm one of those poor saps that rely on the turnpike for my commute. Not only that, there is STILL no decent transit option* for turnpike commuters, nor is there a plan for such a service since the Cross County Metro didn't work out. Therefore, the DAILY jams between Mid-County and Bensalem (especially by Fort Washington/Willow Grove) will continue for the foreseeable future.

*SEPTA operates the 150 between Plymouth Meeting Mall and Parx Casino, but the scheduling doesn't allow for peak hour commuting...and barely any off-peak commuting, nor does the bus serve anything besides the mall and Casino. Additionally, it doesn't seem to connect well with other local bus routes at the hubs. Besides, it does nothing for the King of Prussia/Valley Forge Commuter anyway. Essentially, the 150 is deadhead service that doubles as a Casino Shuttle for seniors...

ChrisinAbington wrote:

Matthew Mitchell wrote:--my understanding is it's a patronage mill.

I have read very much to support that statement. Needless to say, earmarking PTC funds to a particular transit project will be difficult at best. It would likely require the legislature to act, and we know what outstanding progress and foresight they've shown in the past 20 years towards long-term solutions.. (note the irony)
ACT 44 could have been a slam dunk to at least get I-80 off PennDot's budget, but it was designed in such a way that the Feds couldn't give it the approval... Once it fell apart, our state leadership simply ignored the problem.

I'd imagine it would be best to use the money to fund cross -state intercity service rather than region specific boondoggles like the cross county metro anyway. the plus side is that the turnpike has done more to improve the road over the last ten years than anyone's done for the schuylkill. I'd gladly pay extra for less traffic on the schuylkill as there is a very realy cost in sitting in traffic. AFAIK, four of the top five busiest intersections in the area (and probably the state) involve the schuylkill.

Can anyone bring us up-to-date on what is happening with this study, it has been a year since this study and public meetings were started.

SEPTA Capital Budget wrote:Can anyone bring us up-to-date on what is happening with this study, it has been a year since this study and public meetings were started.

A second phase of planning steps is currently underway to refine service alternatives and prepare ridership modeling forecasts, operating and capital cost estimates and user benefit estimates for the new alternatives. This effort is managed by DVRPC, and coordinated with Bucks and Montgomery County Planning Commissions, the TMA of Bucks County and SEPTA. The preliminary findings of this study reflect a different approach to restoring service in the Route 309 corridor by recommending electrification of the SEPTA owned branch line to a terminus point at Pennridge in West Rockhill Township, with some degree of phasing. No Locally Preferred Alternative has been adopted to date. Completion of this Planning effort is anticipated for summer of 2012.

Suburban Station wrote:I'd imagine it would be best to use the money to fund cross -state intercity service rather than region specific boondoggles like the cross county metro anyway. the plus side is that the turnpike has done more to improve the road over the last ten years than anyone's done for the schuylkill. I'd gladly pay extra for less traffic on the schuylkill as there is a very realy cost in sitting in traffic. AFAIK, four of the top five busiest intersections in the area (and probably the state) involve the schuylkill.

I believe that is the story of the Roosevelt Boulevard, not anything to do with the Schuylkill. The Schuylkill intersects with...???

bucksmontcorridor.com is MIA now unfortunately.

Launcher wrote:bucksmontcorridor.com is MIA now unfortunately.

The website is back up, but sadly there doesn't seem to be much in the way of updates though...

Looking at the proposal, I am broadly on board with the Pennridge extension, but think that (a) a stop in central Sellersville needs to be considered, and (b) that Perkasie, not a park-and-ride at Pennridge, is the natural terminus of this line. I know both of these things would increase the expense involved in the buildout, however.

A stop at Pennridge would shift LV-bound traffic away from the current departure points at Lansdale and Colmar. Because of this, I would not be opposed, if this line were built, for the current Colmar (Link Belt) service to be extended to Pennridge (Perkasie?) instead.

hammersklavier wrote:Looking at the proposal, I am broadly on board with the Pennridge extension, but think that (a) a stop in central Sellersville needs to be considered, and (b) that Perkasie, not a park-and-ride at Pennridge, is the natural terminus of this line. I know both of these things would increase the expense involved in the buildout, however.

A stop at Pennridge would shift LV-bound traffic away from the current departure points at Lansdale and Colmar. Because of this, I would not be opposed, if this line were built, for the current Colmar (Link Belt) service to be extended to Pennridge (Perkasie?) instead.

Unfortunately, neither Bucks or Montgomery counties have the political will to find a way to pay for this reactivation. Ergo, we may be having this same conversation in 10 years referring to it as an active busway.

Clearfield wrote:

hammersklavier wrote:Looking at the proposal, I am broadly on board with the Pennridge extension, but think that (a) a stop in central Sellersville needs to be considered, and (b) that Perkasie, not a park-and-ride at Pennridge, is the natural terminus of this line. I know both of these things would increase the expense involved in the buildout, however.

A stop at Pennridge would shift LV-bound traffic away from the current departure points at Lansdale and Colmar. Because of this, I would not be opposed, if this line were built, for the current Colmar (Link Belt) service to be extended to Pennridge (Perkasie?) instead.

Unfortunately, neither Bucks or Montgomery counties have the political will to find a way to pay for this reactivation. Ergo, we may be having this same conversation in 10 years referring to it as an active busway.

Agreed. I've become very pessimistic about passenger service restoration on any of the Bethlehem Branch.

I'm not sure what the other poster meant by extending Colmar service to Pennridge. Does he mean swap Colmar service for Pennridge service?

jrevans wrote:I've become very pessimistic about passenger service restoration on any of the Bethlehem Branch.

*** This is NOT meant to be a "political" rant. Both parties are to blame, and so are both the Obama and W Whitehouse's, but just the way I honestly see it ***

Not just the Bethlehem branch.

No Norristown restoration to anywhere.
No Newtown restoration.
No replacemernt RRD substations.
No SLVI's
Service cuts and fare increases in about a year
Oil companies making record profits

Prior to 911, there little political will to pay for transit in PA, and certainly no defined public policy on it.

Post 911, the Federal Government started two wars, cut taxes, increased entitlements, and reduced funding to State Governments.

The State Governments reduced their spending to match the Federal subsidy cuts.

The local municipalities repsonded by reducing their spending to match the State subsidy cuts.

98% (reportedly) of Republican House and Senate members violated their oath's of Federal Office and signed on to a new Federal Government created by Grover Norquist and pledged not to increase taxes under any circumstances.

Because the Federal government is badly broken, the country is financially broke.

It can't stop spending, it can't stop printing money, and it can't raise taxes from the folks who can afford to pay more. The poor don't pay taxes, and the middle class is being squeezed out of existance.

THIS is trickle Down economics.

Just my 2 cents.

jrevans wrote:

Clearfield wrote:

hammersklavier wrote:Looking at the proposal, I am broadly on board with the Pennridge extension, but think that (a) a stop in central Sellersville needs to be considered, and (b) that Perkasie, not a park-and-ride at Pennridge, is the natural terminus of this line. I know both of these things would increase the expense involved in the buildout, however.

A stop at Pennridge would shift LV-bound traffic away from the current departure points at Lansdale and Colmar. Because of this, I would not be opposed, if this line were built, for the current Colmar (Link Belt) service to be extended to Pennridge (Perkasie?) instead.

Unfortunately, neither Bucks or Montgomery counties have the political will to find a way to pay for this reactivation. Ergo, we may be having this same conversation in 10 years referring to it as an active busway.

Agreed. I've become very pessimistic about passenger service restoration on any of the Bethlehem Branch.

I'm not sure what the other poster meant by extending Colmar service to Pennridge. Does he mean swap Colmar service for Pennridge service?

Exactly.