Proposed PATCO Expansion

R3 Passenger wrote:

Patrick Boylan wrote:What law requiring streetcar systems to use broad guage? I also learned as a child that there was a law, but now that I try googling for it I can't find anything that says it was a law. Do we know for sure it ever was a law, and if so, is it still in effect?

Here, allow me: http://bit.ly/NcEfIi

I certainly allow you, but I don't see how collecting your allowance helps. Your link just goes to a google search similar to ones I've made, and none of the subsequent links that I clicked say anything about any laws. Can you please give me a link to something that says anything about laws mandating broad gauge?

ExCon90 wrote:I don't think it could have been a law unless the law was specifically restricted to apply only to cities with a population exceeding a certain number or something like that. I may get clobbered here, but weren't Reading, Harrisburg, Lancaster, and some other places standard gauge?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Penn_Railways wrote:5 ft 2 1⁄2 in (1,588 mm) (Exception: Kittanning area lines were 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm).)

I think Allentown-Bethlehem was also standard gauge. Certainly Lehigh Valley Transit Norristown-Allentown and Allentown-Easton was standard gauge, so it doesn't seem likely to me that they would have used different gauge for their local city lines.

Clearfield wrote: I heard it was a law enacted a lonnnng time ago to prevent the railroads from buying up existing trolley properties and running freight on the streets.

And I had heard, and keep forgetting, the opposite, that the mighty Pennsylvania Railroad didn't want relatively undercapitalized streetcar companies competing for freight business.

Anyway we seem to have memories and hearsay, but no documentation. I've emailed this to [email protected], [email protected], http://www.rockhilltrolley.org/contact and my brother.

PA broad gauge, law or no?‏

I can remember, but can't figure the source, long ago having heard that there was a law mandating streetcars in Pennsylvania be broad gauge, 5ft 2/4in, but now my friend google doesn't show me any links that mention laws.

What is, or were the reasons why so many, but not apparently all, Pennsylvania, and a few other places, New Orleans and Baltimore, picked broad gauge?

http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=137&t=97614
http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.ph ... &start=630

This thread: Why do the MFL and BSL use different track gauges? covers the subject of guage related issues.

For any further information / discussion, please go there.

Bill R. wrote:4)The operation at grade in Philadelphia did not have to comply with the Pennsylvania law requiring streetcar systems to use broad guage trackage.

Bill, you were the first in recent pages to mention a track gauge law, so it's not quite fair for you now to urge folks not to discuss it related to Proposed Patco Expansion. The link you give has only 1 post about laws, and doesn't cite a source.
In fact that thread refers to yet another thread DIFFERENT RAILWAY GAUGES OF THE WORLD http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3172, 6 pages long. Judging by its title I suspect it might not have much about streetcar gauges and possible laws.

And there's a more recent thread, Streetcar track gauge - broad, standard, or narrow? http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=137&t=97614, for those of you who are sticklers about having threads discuss the topic, and only the topic. Perhaps wisely, the moderator decided to lock that thread, but welcomes private messages and may reopen if anyone has facts to add, but asks for no more opinion and hearsay reiterations.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120 ... SEPTA.html

Is this a plan to complement the Patco expansion, or to replace it?

cpontani wrote:http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120 ... SEPTA.html

Is this a plan to complement the Patco expansion, or to replace it?

Dedicated bus lanes? Ticket stations with shelters and park and ride lots, presumably? 1.6 million annual passengers? 20 million start-up costs? All sounds like an alternative, rather than a supplement, to rail.

Cover story of the May DVARP newsletter:
"Bus Rapid Transit for South Jersey: Enhancement or Distraction"

DVARP is not supporting the project: it's questionable whether or not it's really BRT, let alone whether it's as good as rail.

"rush-hour buses to travel on highway shoulder lanes and medians for part of the trip to Philadelphia" - key word here is PART. 42, 55, 676 at rush hour is anything BUT rapid.... Yet another SJ boondoggle.

The fact they're saying it will take until 2020 to build 13 miles of BRT lane tells me we aren't seeing rail head south in our lifetimes.

From the Inquirer:

In the next step toward a bus rapid transit link between South Jersey and Philadelphia, NJ Transit is set to spend about $800,000 for an environmental study of the route. The money is from a $2.6 million federal grant received last year to advance a proposed rapid-bus system along Route 55, Route 42, and I-676.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local ... _plan.html

It's obvious what project NJ Transit is interested in. There still has not even been an official commitment by NJ Transit to assume control of the Camden-Glassboro line. Meanwhile, the DRPA website for the Camden-Glassboro line is the best indicator of that project's status in limbo.

Tony DeSantis will be up at the meeting on behalf of DVARP, telling the board we don't think BRT is a substitute for rail. And this plan hardly qualifies as bus rapid transit as it is.

Bill R. wrote: It's obvious what project NJ Transit is interested in. There still has not even been an official commitment by NJ Transit to assume control of the Camden-Glassboro line. Meanwhile, the DRPA website for the Camden-Glassboro line is the best indicator of that project's status in limbo.

Neither NJ Transit nor DRPA have any interest in paying for or operating this project.

It's ok though, because what DRPA is interested in is repeatedly asking their friends to study the project. Look for a new study starting soon, and by time that one concludes conditions will have changed and we'll have to study the idea again.

(Seriously, the notion of this line running is becoming a joke, as is the number of times it's been studied since the last train ran to Glassboro in 1973 (77?))

DRPA presented the rail line yet again before the Rowan University board of trustees on February 13.

Now 2019 is the magic year.

http://www.thewhitonline.com/?p=12330819

Wenonah NIMBY's came out by the hundreds to stall progress of Glassboro-Camden rail line study, which will be delivered in June 2015 per the article. At issue is the lack of available parking lots. Wenonah residents are concerned people will drive to the stop and park in their neighborhoods.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/ ... /18678769/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wenonah's a wisp of a town by most standards. So, they don't want a station stop in their backyard. Well, they'll just hear the constant rush of of back and forth trains going through at at 65 mph throughout much of the day. Oh well, you win some and you lose some...

Time for some color commentary:

It is not at all clear that municipalities are actually going to have the ability to refuse a station located within their borders. Readers should know that: 1) There was plenty of municipal opposition to the RiverLine, and 2) That Glassboro-Camden is also anticipated (at this point) to be a Design, Build Operate and Maintain (DBOM) Diesel Light Rail Transit (DLRT) project like the RiverLine for pretty much the same fundamentally flawed reason-- that being the lack of political will to provide readily available funding.

As a private entity, the DBOM operator is going to want as many passengers as possible to maximize revenue. Every station that is eliminated reduces the opportunity for greater revenue.

Furthermore, absent a substantial change in the support of Federal Government for new starts, this project will be the financial responsibility of The State of New Jersey. By the admission of DVRPC staffers at the last open house meetings, the project does not currently meet guidelines for Federal funding. When asked by this writer why a study process that complies with Federal guidelines was being undertaken, the answer was essentially in preparation in case circumstances change. Without federal funding this project will be unencumbered by Federal regulations regarding citizen input, as was the RiverLine.

Wenonah is a small, insular, parochial, conservative town populated primarily by moderately wealthy, white residents that was a hotbed of anti-rail NIMBYism in the 1990's. The so-called Citizens for Alternate Rail group had several influential members from there. A former Mayor was vocally opposed to a rail line through town for many years. This writer was subjected to verbal abuse from Wenonah residents at a Borough Council meeting nearly 20 years ago after making pro-rail comments. Therefore, it is not shocking to see that 1) the Borough Council agreed to hold a referendum, or that 2) the outcome of the referendum opposed a station.

Wenonah would actually like to eliminate the project altogether, but have come to realize that they probably don't have the power to stop the project, so they targeted the next available option by voting to not have a station. As in cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-3), who appears to be the most prominent state level advocate of the project (perhaps because of the potential work available to the Iron Workers Local 399, with which he is associated), won't lose many votes from Wenonah if a station were to be placed there due to the small size and Republican-leaning voting patterns of the town.