Expanding SEPTAs region West to Reading and Harrisburg

I was reading about the proposed expansion of the R6 to Reading (Berks + Montgomery County expansion), which is being supported by Sen. Spector. And, then was read reading about "Corridor One" http://www.corridorone.info/, which is the idea of establish commuter rail between Lancaster and Harrisburg, which I would mean a whole new infrastructure to support these trains.

Why not expand SEPTA's rail mandate west to Harrisburg and have SEPTA take over the Keystone service from Harrisburg? This wouldn't be bad politically when seeking support from those who work in Harrisburg.

SystemsConsciousness wrote:I was reading about the proposed expansion of the R6 to Reading (Berks + Montgomery County expansion), which is being supported by Sen. Spector. And, then was read reading about "Corridor One" http://www.corridorone.info/, which is the idea of establish commuter rail between Lancaster and Harrisburg, which I would mean a whole new infrastructure to support these trains.

From the project website: (http://www.corridorone.info/Project.html)
"The regional rail service would use existing or improved tracks for the entire length of the corridor; no expansion of the existing rail corridor right-of-way is proposed."

Why not expand SEPTA's rail mandate west to Harrisburg and have SEPTA take over the Keystone service from Harrisburg? This wouldn't be bad politically when seeking support from those who work in Harrisburg.

Because SEPTA is not funded to run trains to Harrisburg. Keystone service is operated by Amtrak, and subsidized by the state. For SEPTA to take on the Corridor One service would be a logistical nightmare since all operations, equipment, and maintenance resources are located in Philly. It's like trying to change the channel on the TV at your shore house from your living room in suburban Philly. Local service between the two points would just take forever, and I don't think very many people would benefit. Amtrak's Keystone service fits the bill, I think. SEPTA might be able to do it cheaper, but also consider their crews aren't paid as much, and your butt is going to be sore by the time you get there, for certain. Two distinct local operations serving the city centers, with a comfier intercity express service seems adequate to me.

How far is it from Thorndale to Lancaster? Would it be feasible to extend the R5 to Lancaster?

It's like trying to change the channel on the TV at your shore house from your living room in suburban Philly.

Harrisburg needs to get a Slingbox for Septa...or vice-versa (ha ha)

SystemsConsciousness wrote:Why not expand SEPTA's rail mandate west to Harrisburg and have SEPTA take over the Keystone service from Harrisburg? This wouldn't be bad politically when seeking support from those who work in Harrisburg.

Three words: No onboard restrooms.

Hmm.... There are two issues at work:

1. Commuter rail between Thorn and Harrisburg--and more specifically between Lancaster and Harrisburg.

2. Keystone service between Harrisburg and Philadelphia.

Commuter rail would be short distances therefore bathrooms and other issues are not that big a deal. Septa doesn't exactly have wooden benches and if they were to take on this service (and the service to Reading), they would need additional rolling stock. They took the bathrooms out of the Comets they just got from NJT, but they could get additional coaches with bathrooms for the longer distance runs. That being said, MetroNorth doesn't have bathrooms and the line to Wassaic is 85 miles and runs slower than the Harrisburg line.

I would imagine that a limited train to Harrisburg using SEPTAs AEM7s would be fine for commuters and could stop at points in between enough to satisfy the needs of the Corridor One folks. If not, SEPTA could assign some Silverliners to shuttle between Harrisburg, Lancaster and Paoli.

Lancaster-Harrisburg Market could be served with one extra rush hour frequency in each direction. this could probably be accomplished with tighter turns and, perhaps, some improvements to knock off another 5 to ten minutes from the HAR-PHL trip. Corridor One is NOT a good project. Specter's reasons for support are purely political. Service to Reading/Phoenixville from Philadelphia is much more important as 76 is probably the most congested road in the state. PennDOT could probably contract for through service using diesels from Philadelphia to Reading, then west to Harrisburg via Lebanon. this would, of course, be more expensive than Corridor One but it woudl solve the needs of three regions while connecting all three of them. the most expensive items woudl likely be rehabbing the bridge over the schuylkill in Manayunk and providing a connections between the old PRR and Reading lines. Where corridor one shoudl be focused is York-Harrisburg which is currently served only by bus.

This is definitely a corridor with travel markets at both ends, which can be very productive. The advantage of integrating the Harrisburg service with SEPTA's service east of Thorndale is twofold. First, SEPTA's cost structure is considerably lower: not just in labor costs but also in work rules, ticketing, and other overhead costs. The idea is to provide more service for the same cost, and attract additional ridership. The second advantage is eliminating some of the redundancy west of Paoli. If the outer stops can be covered by Harrisburg trains at the late night and weekend hours, you can save money and equipment.

CorridorONE is the remnant of a much more ambitious commuter rail plan for Harrisburg. Originally, it was supposed to extend west of Harrisburg, but the west shore component was taken off the initial phase because of NIMBY and tax revolt opposition in those communities. There also is a CorridorTWO, which would extend to Lebanon and Reading.

Integrating SEPTA and the Keystone service would probably not involve extending SEPTA to Lancaster and Dauphin counties--it would likely be a purchase of service contract such as Delaware has with SEPTA.

Matthew Mitchell wrote: This is definitely a corridor with travel markets at both ends, which can be very productive. The advantage of integrating the Harrisburg service with SEPTA's service east of Thorndale is twofold. First, SEPTA's cost structure is considerably lower: not just in labor costs but also in work rules, ticketing, and other overhead costs. The idea is to provide more service for the same cost, and attract additional ridership. The second advantage is eliminating some of the redundancy west of Paoli. If the outer stops can be covered by Harrisburg trains at the late night and weekend hours, you can save money and equipment.

I'm not convinced you'd really save much money at all. With all due respect, it's much more enjoyable to travel to downingtown on Amtrak than SEPTA off peak. Second, the current Keystone service is partially funded by higher ticket prices for trips to NYC. Of all railroads in PA, this is perhaps the best example of how two different services can coexist successfully. I'd be interested in seeing the Keystone service extended west of Harrisburg.

Matthew Mitchell wrote:
CorridorONE is the remnant of a much more ambitious commuter rail plan for Harrisburg. Originally, it was supposed to extend west of Harrisburg, but the west shore component was taken off the initial phase because of NIMBY and tax revolt opposition in those communities. There also is a CorridorTWO, which would extend to Lebanon and Reading.

and corridorTWO seems like it would offer much more benefit since there is NO service there. Still, I'd recomend exploring a Keystone style service instead as there is even more need for a Reading-Philly service, running a service Philly-Reading-Harrisburg satisfies both.

I'd like to see SEPTA in West Chester, New Hope, and Allentown first. And, of course, most importantly I'd like to see the Roosevelt Blvd Subway which woudl carry more people thaan all these services combined (I think).

The idea of extending R5 service west is pretty simple. SEPTA has the Push-Pull equipment to do it, the line is in excellent condition and all that is required is writing a check for the cost of operating it and the incremental cost of additional rolling stock. All of the other plans are more complicated because they involve some combination of freight trains, reconstruction of track, electrification and/or diesel. This is the reason I suggested NJT for the Lansdale>Allentown route, because SEPTA is not in that world of diesel or restarting service.

But Harrisburg is different. It is very simple to do and with the a little luck in getting more equipment, it would be very possible. They could even order cars with bathrooms!

As far as the line from York to Harrisburg, is there existing freight traffic on that line? What about running light rail, like the NJT Riverline? If impossible, some kind of RDC situation. And if SEPTA was in Harrisburg anyway, they could operate it. But this would require new equipment infrastructure. Ofcourse the best choice would be to take back the railtrail and run the line between Baltimore and Harrisburg via York and connect to MARC that way.

sc

SystemsConsciousness wrote:That being said, MetroNorth doesn't have bathrooms and the line to Wassaic is 85 miles and runs slower than the Harrisburg line.

Metro-North has restrooms on one car of each MU pair. And all of their cab cars and odd-numbered trailer coaches are restroom-equipped.

SystemsConsciousness wrote: The idea of extending R5 service west is pretty simple. SEPTA has the Push-Pull equipment to do it, the line is in excellent condition and all that is required is writing a check for the cost of operating it and the incremental cost of additional rolling stock. All of the other plans are more complicated because they involve some combination of freight trains, reconstruction of track, electrification and/or diesel.

right, but they offer more in the way of solving transportation problems. It seems like its solving a problem that doesn't exist. Corridor One ridership numbers are a joke.

SystemsConsciousness wrote:
As far as the line from York to Harrisburg, is there existing freight traffic on that line? What about running light rail, like the NJT Riverline? If impossible, some kind of RDC situation. And if SEPTA was in Harrisburg anyway, they could operate it. But this would require new equipment infrastructure. Ofcourse the best choice would be to take back the railtrail and run the line between Baltimore and Harrisburg via York and connect to MARC that way.
sc

Of course, the Harrisburg transit authority that operates the express buses from York coudl also operate it. I believe NS crescent corridor goes through York but I'm not positive. An extension of MARC into harrisburg/york woudl be great. who pays? maybe tolling the road coudl pay for restoration of that line.

In a related note, the train station in Reading now has federal funds for restoration. See: http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=109792.

Let me be clear about this.

"Corridor One ridership numbers are a joke" was recently posted.

This is kind of the point of what I am proposing.

A simple train between Harrisburg and Lancaster is probably not viable. I have no data on this, but it just doesn't seem to make sense. But a SEPTA commuter train extending to Harrisburg, serving communities along the way, would make more sense. Especially since it would be so easy to do in terms of equipment, line, etc.

But, obviously, it would require financial commitment from the state. Would it be my first PA funding priority. No. I would like to see NJT trains from trenton extended to 30 street station and use the extra capacity in the SEPTA network spent on supporting increased demand. Meanwhile, passengers get a single seat ride to NYC and NJT already operates out of 30 street. Besides that, I'd like to see the restoration of the West Chester branch and NJT Raritan Valley line extended to Allentown and down to Lansdale (see other thread) providing better connectivity in the region.

sc

SystemsConsciousness wrote: A simple train between Harrisburg and Lancaster is probably not viable. I have no data on this, but it just doesn't seem to make sense. But a SEPTA commuter train extending to Harrisburg, serving communities along the way, would make more sense. Especially since it would be so easy to do in terms of equipment, line, etc.

there just doesn't seem to be much of a point. It's fine the way it is. In fact, in SEPTA's service plan or capital plan they mention a recently completed study that concluded adequate service levels exist. You could probably tighten the turns to get another trip during rush hour on the keystones. a far bigger problem is parking. my parents live out there and can't find a spot at the [Lancaster] station to take the train. Reading, OTOH, should be pretty high up on the list.