New Lansdale station at Ninth Avenue

[Suburban Station]

No, they are. Like I said, walk-ups are the majority at Fortuna. I can attest to this personally. Some people also park at the larger-than-normal Rite Aid lot across the street. Also, considering the lot has 30 spots and a total board figure of 104 according to the last ridership report (2011), these cannot all be drivers. I understand your sentiment that you can't tailor every station to potential walk-ups as in many cases in the suburbs they are non-existent. This is not the case at Fortuna.

Fortuna is better than the others but it's ridership is too weak to support an argument for yet another lansdale station. del vall college and new britain as well as chalfont shuold probably be cut.

... All in all, its simply not wise to close Fortuna in the same fell swoop as opening 9Th street as the walk-up ridership is NOT insignificant. Leave it open at least until you can gauge changes in ridership patterns. If boards at Fortuna plummet, fine, close the damn thing.

provided no money is investedin fortuna in the meantime.

... it makes sense to spend a limited, smartly applied amount of money to mitigate the characteristics which with sound judgement one can purport cause a limit in ridership. It's simply in the interest of the riding public who may in fact use the station were it actually usable. It also tries to make use of an asset; the fact that the station is already there at all. There are many stations in the system that hold their own in ridership but would not be worth building from scratch; probably a fair chunk of the system is like this. When you completely walk away from a station without a valiant effort in improving it, you have lost that asset, likely forever.

it's time to walk away from those stations. I'd rather see wissonoming come back than waste money on eddington whose location is fairly atrocious.

...
In the case of Eddington; while I use the West Trenton line the vast majority of the time, I could use the Trenton line as a back-up and have but no longer do for a few reasons. First, Croydon and above and Torresdale and below are way too far. Second, Eddington would be relatively easy for me to get to BUT HAS NO DAMNED PARKING. Third, Cornwells Heights requires that I traverse the mess that is Bustleton to Woodhaven Rd. via Evans and the fact that I DO NOT want to have to depend on a shuttle bus to get me to the platform as I'm in a rush to catch the train. It has screwed me in the past and adds an unnecessary chunk of my time wasted where I'm waiting on others to hustle (mostly not) on or off a bus. It's simply not convenient. I can absolutely imagine a piece of the population where all this holds true for them but the West Trenton line is not convenient to get to either, and thus they don't ride the train at all.

you can't be convenient for everyone at all times, you have to target your markets wisely with limited capital, eddington is not a smart location.

ni the end it seems the idea is to close the city stations but spend millions to keep a few suburbanites happy. the reality is stations cost money. ridership does not justify the almost rapid transit level of station buildnig you are recomending. having stations at landsale, 9th st, and fortuna is complete overkill given the volume of people using fortuna and the short distances in between. if I were going to kill stations, and septa needs to, it should be del val college, new britain, angora, and eddington. sometimes you have to cull the herd. rather than waste money on eddington they have invested money in cornwells. you cite why it is mildly inconvenient for your to use cornwells but so what? why does that mean they should keep a station open that no one uses? you can't have both ALL stations brought up to code AND service expansions. At some point you actually have to make difficult choices, siding with unused stations is the easy choice since they have supporters while unbuilt service expansions are only theoretical losers.

[Suburban Station]

But, i still think new station in landsdale = no.

exactly. I'd rather see a one station extension of service than keeping alive del val college, new britain, chalfont, and building yet another lansdale station. will one station solve all the problems? no, but it's a step in the right direction. stopping trains isn't free, each silverliner is what, 121k pounds or so? anyone know the calculation for getting a 4 car train up to speed from a dead stop?

[SCB2525]

I can buy closing Fortuna; there's a bus that goes nearby that could be rerouted slightly to serve those people.

You won't convince me of Eddington. I live not that far away, the location may be surrounded by heavy industrial but it is situated in a good spot. NO SUBURBAN STATION WILL DO WELL WITHOUT PARKING. PERIOD.

[Suburban Station]

I can buy closing Fortuna; there's a bus that goes nearby that could be rerouted slightly to serve those people.

You won't convince me of Eddington. I live not that far away, the location may be surrounded by heavy industrial but it is situated in a good spot. NO SUBURBAN STATION WILL DO WELL WITHOUT PARKING. PERIOD.

id say the exact opposite. eddington is in an awful spot and its ridership shows its weakness. there is already a gargantuan lot at cwh. since people arent walking there is no impact to ridership. close eddington and reinvest in cwh or at least properly maintain the much better used bristol

[Push&Pull Master]

No, they are. Like I said, walk-ups are the majority at Fortuna. I can attest to this personally. Some people also park at the larger-than-normal Rite Aid lot across the street. Also, considering the lot has 30 spots and a total board figure of 104 according to the last ridership report (2011), these cannot all be drivers. I understand your sentiment that you can't tailor every station to potential walk-ups as in many cases in the suburbs they are non-existent. This is not the case at Fortuna.

Fortuna is better than the others but it's ridership is too weak to support an argument for yet another lansdale station. del vall college and new britain as well as chalfont shuold probably be cut.

... All in all, its simply not wise to close Fortuna in the same fell swoop as opening 9Th street as the walk-up ridership is NOT insignificant. Leave it open at least until you can gauge changes in ridership patterns. If boards at Fortuna plummet, fine, close the damn thing.

provided no money is investedin fortuna in the meantime.

... it makes sense to spend a limited, smartly applied amount of money to mitigate the characteristics which with sound judgement one can purport cause a limit in ridership. It's simply in the interest of the riding public who may in fact use the station were it actually usable. It also tries to make use of an asset; the fact that the station is already there at all. There are many stations in the system that hold their own in ridership but would not be worth building from scratch; probably a fair chunk of the system is like this. When you completely walk away from a station without a valiant effort in improving it, you have lost that asset, likely forever.

it's time to walk away from those stations. I'd rather see wissonoming come back than waste money on eddington whose location is fairly atrocious.

...
In the case of Eddington; while I use the West Trenton line the vast majority of the time, I could use the Trenton line as a back-up and have but no longer do for a few reasons. First, Croydon and above and Torresdale and below are way too far. Second, Eddington would be relatively easy for me to get to BUT HAS NO DAMNED PARKING. Third, Cornwells Heights requires that I traverse the mess that is Bustleton to Woodhaven Rd. via Evans and the fact that I DO NOT want to have to depend on a shuttle bus to get me to the platform as I'm in a rush to catch the train. It has screwed me in the past and adds an unnecessary chunk of my time wasted where I'm waiting on others to hustle (mostly not) on or off a bus. It's simply not convenient. I can absolutely imagine a piece of the population where all this holds true for them but the West Trenton line is not convenient to get to either, and thus they don't ride the train at all.

you can't be convenient for everyone at all times, you have to target your markets wisely with limited capital, eddington is not a smart location.

ni the end it seems the idea is to close the city stations but spend millions to keep a few suburbanites happy. the reality is stations cost money. ridership does not justify the almost rapid transit level of station buildnig you are recomending. having stations at landsale, 9th st, and fortuna is complete overkill given the volume of people using fortuna and the short distances in between. if I were going to kill stations, and septa needs to, it should be del val college, new britain, angora, and eddington. sometimes you have to cull the herd. rather than waste money on eddington they have invested money in cornwells. you cite why it is mildly inconvenient for your to use cornwells but so what? why does that mean they should keep a station open that no one uses? you can't have both ALL stations brought up to code AND service expansions. At some point you actually have to make difficult choices, siding with unused stations is the easy choice since they have supporters while unbuilt service expansions are only theoretical losers.

At the end of the day, I really don't think Septa is looking at using Ninth Street for more than just a temporary parking lot. Lansdale is the one who keeps bringing up this station, not Septa. Honestly, Septa should close Del-Val-College and Link Belt and expand parking at New Britain. Del-Val-College and Link Belt can be served by a bus route. And how is Eddington related to a new station in Lansdale? That could really be a separate topic.

[25Hz]

Link belt is high platform though, and so is del val, theres a college there, which pretty much means guaranteed traffic even if it is lower numbers. I don't see it closing... ever.

Link belt, if closed, should get a layover/storage track long enough to fit 5-6 cars?

[R3 Passenger]

SEPTA's review of its underperforming stations can be found in its Annual Service Plan (PDF pg 67/Report pg 63)

Proposed FY 15 Service Plan

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[Tritransit Area]

I don't understand the call to close Del Val College Station (which directly serves a college campus and is a direct link to so many interesting towns along the Lansdale/Doylestown Line) and Chalfont, which is located within a walkable district.

Eddington would have more potential if Street Road was a more pedestrian friendly roadway, but it isn't, and likely won't be anytime soon. Also the station itself is set up in such a way that a high-platform is nearly impossible unless it was moved, and at that point people might as well go to Cornwells or Croydon.

[Suburban Station]

I don't understand the call to close Del Val College Station (which directly serves a college campus and is a direct link to so many interesting towns along the Lansdale/Doylestown Line) and Chalfont, which is located within a walkable district.

Eddington would have more potential if Street Road was a more pedestrian friendly roadway, but it isn't, and likely won't be anytime soon. Also the station itself is set up in such a way that a high-platform is nearly impossible unless it was moved, and at that point people might as well go to Cornwells or Croydon.

nobody uses the station. one would hope the high level platform was not paid for out of SEPTA's budget but by the county or college. hard to imagine what backwards thought process would build hlp's at lightly used stations while letting well used stations rot.

[SCB2525]

Del Val shouldn't be closed outright but moved to be accessible to the general public.

[Push&Pull Master]

I don't understand the call to close Del Val College Station (which directly serves a college campus and is a direct link to so many interesting towns along the Lansdale/Doylestown Line) and Chalfont, which is located within a walkable district.

Eddington would have more potential if Street Road was a more pedestrian friendly roadway, but it isn't, and likely won't be anytime soon. Also the station itself is set up in such a way that a high-platform is nearly impossible unless it was moved, and at that point people might as well go to Cornwells or Croydon.

Alright, I change my mind on closing Del-Val-College but I really feel that it shouldn't be served by express trains for commuters working in the city because it's a reverse commute stop. It would generate a lot more ridership if it had about 40 minute reverse peak intervals. Now closing Chalfont would be a terrible idea because it has the potential for a much larger parking lot and it's in a town center. In fact between 2009 and 2011, it's ridership has grown from 105 to close to about 140. At this rate, it should have well over 200 boardings by 2020. And how did Eddington get into this discussion?

[N.E.Pennsy]

Now closing Chalfont would be a terrible idea because it has the potential for a much larger parking lot and it's in a town center.

I recall reading an article that the redevelopment of the old Chalfont Firehouse site (near the Station) will yield some additional parking for SEPTA. Not sure if that plan was approved or not; or if it is proceeding forward.

[SCB2525]

And how did Eddington get into this discussion?

Similar situation to say Link Belt.

Now closing Chalfont would be a terrible idea because it has the potential for a much larger parking lot and it's in a town center. In fact between 2009 and 2011, it's ridership has grown from 105 to close to about 140. At this rate, it should have well over 200 boardings by 2020.

Not necessarily. It is parking constrained.

[Push&Pull Master]

And how did Eddington get into this discussion?

Similar situation to say Link Belt.

Now closing Chalfont would be a terrible idea because it has the potential for a much larger parking lot and it's in a town center. In fact between 2009 and 2011, it's ridership has grown from 105 to close to about 140. At this rate, it should have well over 200 boardings by 2020.

Not necessarily. It is parking constrained.

I meant to say that Chalfont has experienced growth lately and I think that more walk-up ridership might come within the next few years. I feel that Chalfont also has the most potential after Doylestown and Colmar But I'm probably wrong about this so just take it with a grain of salt. I haven't even been to Chalfont in over 2 years.

[CComMack]

NO SUBURBAN STATION WILL DO WELL WITHOUT PARKING OR VERY INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT. PERIOD.

Fixed that for you.

There's plenty of stations that do perfectly well with no or negligible parking, but they all have older, transit-oriented development surrounding them, supplying them with walk-up passengers. Even stations with parking lots have better results attracting walk-up ridership than park-and-ride. Swarthmore's ridership of 718 wouldn't go to zero if you wiped out its 250 parking spots, Jenkintown's 589 parking spots do not account for its 1,600+ riders, etc. etc. If the local zoning allows you to build even at a moderate density, then you might lose net riders by building surface parking instead of housing.