Bill R. wrote:Support pledged for S. Jersey light-rail line
The Inquirer wrote:The Christie administration supports a proposed light-rail line between Camden and Glassboro, though it may not honor a $500 million funding promise made by former Gov. Jon S. Corzine.
The pledge from the Transportation Trust Fund was "Corzine's commitment, not ours," James Simpson, New Jersey transportation commissioner, said Tuesday. The Christie administration can't say yet how much it may provide for the $1.6 billion, 18-mile rail line, he said.
Anybody care to guess how much money they will eventually contribute? My vote is that they will put in their two cents ... and nothing more 
.
Far be it from me to toot my own horn, but I liked the
Courier Post's article a bit more, if only because they got at least a third of my statement in there. Using a Stadler GTW 2/6 which accelerates at 2mph/s leaves a lot to be desired relative to the 3mph/s which light rail and PATCO trains accelerate at. Going to an electric 3mph/s train would save roughly 3-4 minutes on each run, and between 6 and 8 minutes per round trip. That means it is possible an electrified Glassboro line, with all other factors (top speed, station dwell time, and so on) being held constant, would require one less trainset to maintain the 7:30 minute peak headway. Thus while we may spend 200 million dollars on electrification, we'll spend less on the cars now, and then spend less maintaining them for every year after that.
If we're going to apply for federal funding then this project is going to have to survive on its technical merits, regardless of the rule changes at the FTA. The number of riders per dollar invested will still count for something. This is a rare instance where relatively affordable investments can greatly increase the ridership to significantly increase the number of riders per dollar. We were told nearly 30,000 riders would utilize Alternative 3, so clearly there is room for ridership to grow relative the Alt 4 projections. If we electrify the line, raise the platforms to 48 inches, and tie this line in to PATCO we can tap into that ridership market and yet not face the prospect of a multibillion dollar investment like Alt 3 proposed. I do not see how an electric LRT running at grade level is somehow any less acceptable than a diesel LRT running on the same route at the same speed on the same headway, so clearly grade separation is not required. Indeed if train lengths approach the standard PATCO 400 foot length, then we can reduce headways to 8 minutes or more, still have a much greater capacity than the proposed GTW 2/6 alternative, and yet have less time during which the grade crossing signals are down all while only slightly inconveniencing the riders. We can potentially increase the ridership factor by more than 50%, while increasing the capital cost by less than 20%. In the FTA's analysis that has to account for something.
I really fear the exact opposite of the poor uninformed Ms. Rhodes. The Riverline has extremely limited room for ridership growth because its utility was underestimated before construction was undertaken. We're on the way to making the same mistake with the Glassboro line. From what the representatives at the meeting told me the new line will likely use the same undersized 102 foot GTW 2/6 cars the Riverline uses. I specifically asked if they'd considered the 134 foot GTW 2/6s Austin, Texas, and the rest of the world uses, but was told they were going for complete compatibility by two representatives. If this is the case then at 7.5 minute headways that is just 1600 passengers per hour per direction. While I like the idea of having two anchors to the line I do not for a second believe the ridership against the peak direction and during off peak hours will be more than half the total ridership of the system. This means 9000 people will use the line in the peak direction during the combined 6 peak hours per day, and that means about 1500 people per hour averaged over the length of rush hour, with short time peaks likely above 2000 people per hour. That is just about the maximum capacity of the pygmy Stadlers NJT runs on the Riverline using a 7.5 minute schedule, so if the ridership is even slightly above the projections it will quickly become uncomfortable for commuters.
And we can't exactly add new trains to the line since it will share the Walter Rand Transportation Center with the Riverline. With the extended dwell times the Riverline currently has it may as well be relaying there, so we'll effectively go from 4 trains per hour relaying to 12 trains per hour relaying. I'd be willing to bet that with the current schedules they'd be hard pressed to squeeze more than 15tph through WRTC with the Glassboro line relaying and the Riverline making up time at that point. The only solution to the Glassboro line's capacity being overshot will be an extremely costly rebuild program to lengthen platforms and purchase additional cars, which will also increase operational costs. I'd rather see us get it right the first time rather than botch it and go back to fix it once it's already on its way to becoming a white elephant.
The powers that be finally moved on from the nearly useless alignments along Rt42 and Rt55, but IMHO there is still some work to be done before we get the right mode selected. Giving the Glassboro line direct access to Center City Philadelphia for a very minor investment in electrification and platforms is the sort of thing we can easily do to make it more acceptable to the FTA. Bombardier can still be involved in a DBOM if they can get the DRPA and particularly Teamsters Local 676 to agree to an operating plan into the Locust St Subway. Indeed I would argue Bombardier's experience with using their Flexity LRT as the basis of the Rotterdam Metro's 5400 and Ranstead Rail's 5500 series metro trains is exactly the sort of model we should be pursuing for the Glassboro line, although the combination of overhead wire and third rail is simple enough any manufacturer can design a railcar for it. I think we're very close to a workable solution that will both look good to the FTA and ultimately serve the needs of Gloucester and Camden Counties very well for the coming decades.
And BillR, are you the creator of
PATCOLightrail.com? If not, would you or anyone else here happen to know if it remains an active website?
Gardendance wrote:
I assume satellite09 is talking about the proposed PATCO expansions in Philly, Delaware Ave and Market St, not the Woodbury-Glassboro-Vineland-Millville proposal.
People, please be a bit clearer what you're referring to, otherwise it'll confuse people, even those who are from around here. satellite09, if you did actually mean the South Jersey Patco proposal, and not the Philly Patco proposal, my apologies, but if so why do you think SEPTA operating Philly transit should apply to a line in Jersey?
I doubt I'm alone in wishing we'd set up two different threads back when it became apparent the DRPA was undertaking two entirely separate projects in different states. It'd be a lot less confusing to have one thread for the Glassboro-Camden line and another for the proposed Waterfront trolley. But I guess they're now irrevocably intertwined on this forum.
