Wayne Junction-Scope, Cost and Necessity of Project

Gotcha. But wouldn't NPT attract riders rather than chase them away?

I don't see how any rework of how passengers pay for their tickets can attract enough new riders to make ridership increases a major reason for making the change. I'd assume potentially lower revenue collecting operating costs and lowered fare evasion would come before possibly attracting new riders.

In the current situation, on the railroad at least, where it's pretty hard for off peak discretionary riders to get on the train without incurring the penalty that isn't a penalty, then I can see going to a system that allows them to pay electronically and not incur the penalty might increase off peak ridership. And I believe there's excess capacity off peak, so for the most part they should be able to receive higher passenger loads at less expense than it would take to increase capacity at peak.

But many of the schemes I've read, for example gating center city stations, sound like the could add crowded chokepoints for passengers to get to and from station platforms. If it takes a regular rush hour commuter an extra 5 minutes each way to thread uncomfortably through a huge crowd, that could drive away passengers.

SEPTA's primary justification for NPT is two-fold: make the system more convenient for occasional riders and increase the reliability of fare collection (reduce the incidence of tickets not being canceled). The project is also functioning as the replacement or remanufacturing of a lot of life-expired fare equipment. SEPTA would have had to spend some sum (certainly not as much as the total NPT project) on this equipment even if they had not changed the payment system.

The estimates of ridership gains from this are modest: we are not going to see the big increase New York had with Metrocard because SEPTA already has unlimited-use passes and SEPTA doesn't want to make bus/rail transfers free. SEPTA is not claiming the project will pay for itself (I'll note they've been somewhat opaque about the operating budget impacts, perhaps because they hesitate to take the steps to capture the full benefits--namely reducing the number of subway cashiers on the payroll). It will increase ridership at least somewhat, increasing the value of the system to the region.

To answer Patrick's question, the turnstiles in Center City are surely going to be a nuisance for riders, especially peak commuters (one of several reasons we oppose the plan), but they won't cause the kinds of crowding he fears. If it did, the plan would be killed on safety grounds. This is one area where SEPTA has been transparent (the pedestrian flow study is floating around online) and by being transparent was able to defend their plan.

And to tie this in with the other thread, the turnstile system would be a constraint on ridership growth. I did a rough estimate that if ridership went up 20-25 percent, it would stretch the throughput of the as-planned turnstiles at 30th and Suburban to the point where you would have unacceptable queuing. The self-service alternative DVARP proposed (TVMs at all stations) is much more scalable.

We fully agreed with DVARP's self-service recommendation, and we feel this is the most cost-effective and rider friendly approach at the moment. The "do nothing" approach to fare collection isn't a bad one either, as the system seems to be functioning reasonably well at the moment, and certainly when SEPTA claims the bridges are in dire condition.

As Matt pointed out, SEPTA doesn't appear to be publicly claiming any cost savings from NPT. If their stated objective is to increase the reliability of fare collection, yet there is no expected cost savings, that really leaves only the "convenience" aspect of it.

In most rider's experience, SEPTA is not a leader in passenger convenience when it comes to fares. We all have seen the "No Change Available" signs on the subways, ironically right next to the old "SEPTA - Serious About Change" slogan. I'm inclined to doubt that convenience was ever or will ever be a high priority. (In fact, I'm not sure that it should, either - ridership growth is probably a better metric to chase.)

With all this in mind, it's disturbing that we have a project in the 100-200 million range that has no clearly defined payback, while we complain about bridges getting ready to fall down. This is PA-TEC's position in a nutshell - don't ask for more money when you're spending it on NPT instead of bridges.

With regards to NPT,

A lot of that is Harrisburg driven, and not what Septa wants to do. Harrisburg sees the cashiers as a large expense, and knows NPT will phase that position out and eventually scale back SEPTA's work force. There are a lot of cashiers, and while many will be recast as station keepers or whatever they are calling that job this week, the others will be retiring or finding new positions in the authority.

A lot of the grant money SEPTA gets is part of one politician or another's wish list. It is often like getting something for Christmas that does not benefit you at all but instead benefits the person who gave it to you. This may benefit the politician because it curries favor from the local voters, or favor from a local contractor or other benefactor. Some of the stipulations of the grants are simply ridiculous, but only a fool would kill the golden goose; as for every silly project, there is also money given to the important ones.

An example of the above would be the above mentioned Parkside Loop. The loop was moved under pressure from some forces in that neighborhood. They wanted bus service to be more convenient to the big shopping center that hosts the Lowes. This is part of a larger initiative to "revitalize" the neighborhood. Whether or not it accomplishes this, is something for the locals and city planners to ponder.

With regards to the rusting fixtures at 69th street. They are about the most durable fixtures one can buy, (heck, they are Prison Fixtures) but nothing holds up to the abuse that place sees.

Lefty.

The Parkside move is also related to an industrial redevelopment to the west of the old loop. Extending the 40, 43, and other such routes there connects more people with jobs. Here's your example of transit-oriented development.

The Parkside move is also related to an industrial redevelopment to the west of the old loop. Extending the 40, 43, and other such routes there connects more people with jobs. Here's your example of transit-oriented development.

So why didn't the industrial redevelopment pay for the loop? Why was a loop even needed? Wouldn't it have been better just to drop off riders in the shopping center instead of making them walk, especially in light of their being no sidewalks to get from the shops to the loop? That loop isn't even close to the shopping.

Here's your example of transit-disconnected development. The new parkside bus loop is an insult to transit riders.

lefty wrote:A lot of the grant money SEPTA gets is part of one politician or another's wish list.

And I'll bet ALL of the grant money SEPTA gets comes from taxpayers, who incidentally have their own wish lists that don't include paying for silly projects just to get the occasional important project done.

lefty wrote:The loop was moved under pressure from some forces in that neighborhood. They wanted bus service to be more convenient to the big shopping center that hosts the Lowes.

Hmmm. Were these the same forces that couldn't muster enough pressure to actually ask the shopping center if they could turn the bus around in the big empty parking lot? They couldn't get ANY conditions on the shopping center before it was built? Like sidewalks connecting the bus loop they wanted so badly for the Lowes? (Not to pile on, but are Lowes and transit really even that compatible in the first place? Can I put a sheet of plywood in the bike rack?) These "neighborhood forces" somehow got their hands on $2.4 million dollars. Show me, if you can, that they even ONCE asked the shopping center about transit arrangements.

Matthew Mitchell wrote:Here's your example of transit-oriented development.

The irony is that we're moving bus loops to better serve a decidedly NOT transit-oriented shopping center. We're repeating the buzzwords like parrots, but we're not paying attention to the underlying concept - which is to make communities more livable all around. That means planning at all stages, not just AFTER someone realized the suburban-style shopping center wasn't walkable.

lefty wrote:...nothing holds up to the abuse that place sees.

Well then maybe the money should have been spent on more police presence (or maybe... schools?).

I'm taking a hard line on this - we should stop volunteering to do SEPTA's fundraising, and instead demand more meaningful grants. Failing that, just plain fewer grants would put an end to this nonsense.

The only thing on my wish list right now is another set of SFC's and a new sub at Jenk.

John Scott, PA-TEC wrote:

lefty wrote:A lot of the grant money SEPTA gets is part of one politician or another's wish list.

And I'll bet ALL of the grant money SEPTA gets comes from taxpayers, who incidentally have their own wish lists that don't include paying for silly projects just to get the occasional important project done.

Be that as it may, under our system of government, taxpayers do not set funding priorities directly, but rather elect representatives to make such decisions for them. So long as those representatives' priorities are satisfactory enough that they don't lead to defeat for re-election, it is safe to assume that they will continue.

If you don't like how Washington, Harrisburg, and City Hall are giving money to SEPTA, then your problem is with Washington, Harrisburg, and City Hall. Figure out precisely who, and then work against their re-election, if this is your burning issue.

John Scott, PA-TEC wrote:I'm taking a hard line on this - we should stop volunteering to do SEPTA's fundraising, and instead demand more meaningful grants. Failing that, just plain fewer grants would put an end to this nonsense.

When I was 5 and arguing with my parents, holding my breath didn't work so well as a tactic.

Is it really your position that the repairs to Wayne Junction will be actively detrimental, as opposed to merely a misordered priority? Because that's what you're saying when you say "fewer grants would put an end to this nonsense".

Amtrak's highest priority for improving speeds and capacity on the NEC was not a flyover at HAROLD. The flyover is being built this year because Albany and Washington got together to fund it, because it will improve Amtrak performance even if it's not the most pressing project to do so, and because Amtrak recognizes that politics is the art of the possible. That is the lead I choose to follow.

What do you know about priorities? Your supposed to be working on Maximum capacity from the present system, not posting on other threads as well

CComMack wrote:Is it really your position that the repairs to Wayne Junction will be actively detrimental, as opposed to merely a misordered priority?

If the bridges are in the condition SEPTA says they are in, then yes, renovations are both a misordered priority, AND actively detrimental. There is an opportunity cost to spending unwisely.

While I admit that it would may take quite a bit of change at the federal, state, and city level to re-order priorities, I'm suggesting that those efforts would pay off better than "let's help SEPTA get more funding" efforts afoot. In other words, instead of writing legislators about the need to increase funding, write them and tell them to shift the grants away from sexy things like rusty urinals, and towards things like new bridges.

However, at least some of this problem seems unique to SEPTA. SEPTA is funding NPT with bonds, paid from its capital budget. Those funds were NOT required to be used for a specific purpose. As far as I can tell, and I'd love to hear an opposing viewpoint, NPT funding IS clearly come to the detriment of SGR (State of Good Repair) funding.

John Scott, PA-TEC wrote:

CComMack wrote:Is it really your position that the repairs to Wayne Junction will be actively detrimental, as opposed to merely a misordered priority?

If the bridges are in the condition SEPTA says they are in, then yes, renovations are both a misordered priority, AND actively detrimental. There is an opportunity cost to spending unwisely.

I am very well versed in the concept of opportunity cost, but that wasn't what I was asking about. My question was, if you were walking along the street, and lying in the middle of it was a coupon reading "Good for One Free Wayne Junction Renovation", would it be worth the effort and the five seconds to bend down and pick it up? That's not actually a very complete analogy for this, since turning down the money for the project would not only be leaving money on the table, but would also offend whichever politician is behind the project, who is presumably trying to butter up his constituents (or, to be cynical, his contractor campaign-donors) and using SEPTA as a means to do so.

John Scott, PA-TEC wrote:However, at least some of this problem seems unique to SEPTA. SEPTA is funding NPT with bonds, paid from its capital budget. Those funds were NOT required to be used for a specific purpose. As far as I can tell, and I'd love to hear an opposing viewpoint, NPT funding IS clearly come to the detriment of SGR (State of Good Repair) funding.

Our current fare payment technology is getting rather deficient; you have noticed the current state of the ticket machines in the Center City stations? ("What ticket machines?" "Exactly.") Less obviously, the turnstiles and fareboxes are starting to get long in the tooth (bus and trolley fareboxes have always had a relatively high failure rate, in my experience), and they will need replacing at some point, which SEPTA says is soon, and I have no reason to doubt that. Many of the line items in the NPT program would be SGR line items if the NPT program did not exist, and delaying the NPT upgrade in the hope of better budgetary climates is questionably penny-wise and certainly pound-foolish. Since "penny-wise and pound-foolish" is practically SEPTA's default position, from which it often must be forcibly dragged, kicking and screaming, why would we want to encourage them to go back to that?

ComMack wrote:... lying in the middle of it was a coupon...would it be worth the effort and the five seconds to bend down and pick it up?

Of course. But we're getting to the point where taxpayers are spending $100 on coupons (earmarks? grants?) for $20 of groceries (bridges!) they actually need. If that's true, well, as I said, we don't have a funding problem, we have a priority problem.

ComMack wrote:"What ticket machines?" "Exactly."

Yes, exactly, indeed. I remember the ticket machines. Funny thing is, rail ridership hardly took a hit without them. There was a gas crisis and all, but the reality is that regional rail seems to be doing just fine with the current fare system. SEPTA is not predicting substantial savings or ridership gains from NPT - as Mitchell astutely pointed out, the new turnstiles wouldn't support too many new passengers anyway. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, most of the regional rail portion of NPT is going to create infrastructure where infrastructure doesn't currently exist - new turnstiles, new exit sensors, backend programming, etc. More equipment=more maintenance costs. While SEPTA may be seizing the opportunity to do this under favorable budget conditions, remember the debt will be here for years regardless, and at some point the maintenance costs will start increasing, since there will be more infrastructure to maintain. The effect is going to be more strain on the budget, not less. If I understand correctly, NPT is just about doubling the number of turnstiles the system will have. If part of the costs of NPT are so necessary to replace existing turnstiles, doubling the number of them will surely make things worse later.

That suggests that the only benefit is on the city transit side. I'm sure you're right, and the fare collection system has a high failure rate, but replacing it all at once isn't necessary, either. This is definitely not my area of expertise, but as I understand things, fareboxes get pulled every time a vehicle comes back, and defective ones are removed from the pool and replaced. It would seem logical that some of the fare equipment is far short of its service life. I've never actually heard that the fare equipment is old, merely "old technology". There's a huge difference. In any case, replacing all of it, as NPT will do, may lower short term maintenance costs, but it won't eliminate costs forever.

The ultimate proof, though, is still that SEPTA does not claim a savings from NPT. It's an added item on the capital budget with no reduction on the operating budget. Most of us would call that unnecessary.

Even if the existing funding was solely diverted to state of good repair, it wouldn't be enough... $300 million is actually a pretty low budget for a system with the amount of infrastructure SEPTA has to maintain. Plus, as the time goes on, more parts of the system will have to be maintained, increasing costs.

On the NPT side of things, there stand to be a lot of savings. According to SEPTA's site at http://www.septa.org/fares/npt/why.html:

Furthermore, the reliability and functionality of the existing legacy fare collection system cannot be improved due to the age of the electronics and limitations of the existing computer operating system. As a result, collections remain largely a manual process.

A modern payment approach will not only enhance the rider experience but will also improve SEPTA's operational efficiencies. Through real time reconciliation of payment and ridership data, SEPTA can more efficiently manage its vehicle fleet, modify scheduling and service to meet rider needs, and make policy and planning decisions based on precise information.

What's highlighted in bold would lead to greater system efficiencies, scheduling trains and routing buses to better reflected today's travel trends. Many routes, especially in the City of Philadelphia, haven't changed for decades...even though the neighborhoods the routes serve have changed significantly.

Here's more on SEPTA's NPT site at http://www.septa.org/fares/npt/what.html:

For SEPTA, the new fare payment system is projected to reduce operating and maintenance costs. This will be accomplished through improved revenue accountability and operating efficiencies gained from system automation and decisions made using information in real time.

Additionally, employing open standards and non-proprietary protocols gives SEPTA added flexibility to more effectively respond to ridership needs and industry challenges. Such open standards also permit regional integration with other transportation systems

What also makes this system good for SEPTA (politically) is that they are working towards becoming as efficient as possible, making politicians look at SEPTA more favorably and perhaps won't balk as much when SEPTA asks for more funding.