PATCO to Glassboro?

Dcell wrote:Apparently one possible option is to convert the ROW into a dedicated busway with CNG vehicles.

You’re thinking of the city branch, which is different from the loop. The loop runs under 8th, Locust, 20th, and Arch. Most of the Arch st and some of the Locust st past 16th is built, with the only real missing section being the 20th part.

The NIMBY bullsh_t has already begun (again! 23 years later):

http://www.facebook.com/chatmantua/

Should this suprise anyone given that Gloucester County went for Trump in 2016 by 12 points?

Bill R. wrote:The NIMBY bullsh_t has already begun (again! 23 years later):

http://www.facebook.com/chatmantua/

Should this suprise anyone given that Gloucester County went for Trump in 2016 by 12 points?

Jesus Christ.
Have those people ever seen a city?
Why are they saying that it will "force people out of homes?"

Ah, those comments. A lot of people expressing a desire to leave because the light rail might be, as someone put it, "Drug Express".

mcgrath618 wrote: Why are they saying that it will "force people out of homes?"

That's the silly part since the ROW is already there.

mcgrath618 wrote:Why are they saying that it will "force people out of homes?"

My 2¢ is it might be another example of that infamous "binary response" that more and more researchers are trying to understand. For whatever reason some people interpret events, rules, situations etc. in black/white, on/off terms. Things are either fantastic or they're horrible with nothing in between. The latter fires off the brain's flight-or-fight center which is why the reactions can be so extreme. It was similar when the LPA for the NHSL spur was announced. It's true SEPTA did a tone-deaf job of planning the Turnpike crossover and should have realized the initial idea was a non-starter, but the reactions of many who would have been affected were big-time disproportionate. Instead of "wait a minute, this isn't gonna work. How can we fix it?" people were actually screaming that "bulldozers will be coming down our street next week" and other such disaster scenarios. Ditto for the crime bogeyman. Trying to point out that city residents were already coming to the area by bus (and for JOBS, not pillage) was like whispering in a storm.

For me at least a takeaway would be that planners and presenters need to do a better job of taking the likelihood of binary responders into account, and do more to get out in front of possible flash points. It'll never be smooth, but as with the tpk crossover there may be clear issues that can be defused before events start devolving.

Don't want to go OT again, so back to PATCO.

JeffK wrote:

mcgrath618 wrote:Why are they saying that it will "force people out of homes?"

My 2¢ is it might be another example of that infamous "binary response" that more and more researchers are trying to understand. For whatever reason some people interpret events, rules, situations etc. in black/white, on/off terms. Things are either fantastic or they're horrible with nothing in between. The latter fires off the brain's flight-or-fight center which is why the reactions can be so extreme. It was similar when the LPA for the NHSL spur was announced. It's true SEPTA did a tone-deaf job of planning the Turnpike crossover and should have realized the initial idea was a non-starter, but the reactions of many who would have been affected were big-time disproportionate. Instead of "wait a minute, this isn't gonna work. How can we fix it?" people were actually screaming that "bulldozers will be coming down our street next week" and other such disaster scenarios. Ditto for the crime bogeyman. Trying to point out that city residents were already coming to the area by bus (and for JOBS, not pillage) was like whispering in a storm.

For me at least a takeaway would be that planners and presenters need to do a better job of taking the likelihood of binary responders into account, and do more to get out in front of possible flash points. It'll never be smooth, but as with the tpk crossover there may be clear issues that can be defused before events start devolving.

Don't want to go OT again, so back to PATCO.

The difference, as stated by ekt8750, is that the ROW is already in place for any PATCO extension.
And what criminal in their right mind would decide one day, "Hey I'll take that new PATCO extension over to Glassboro so I can rob those peoples' homes?" That's not how it works.

This is encouraging news, the upcoming impact statement. I for one would like to see the plan include a park and ride facility where the extension will cross over interstate 295. That would be quite successful in getting riders who do not live in towns along the extension.

mcgrath618 wrote:And what criminal in their right mind would decide one day, "Hey I'll take that new PATCO extension over to Glassboro so I can rob those peoples' homes?" That's not how it works.

I punked an opponent of the NHSL spur by telling him that every morning I watched people lining up to take the Paoli Local so they could rob houses on the Main Line (wink, wink). His response was on the order of "See, somebody finally gets how much crime mass transit brings!" Un be lieve able.

The NHSL also had people chirping up about the 9/11 memorial. I heard that the township spend nearly 100,000 dollars on signage just to let people know it was there. We also have the no KOP rail Facebook page of fanatics https://www.facebook.com/nokoprail/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Those boneheads complain about the NHSL but are gun ho about the Phoenixville regional rail proposal...

And for the record: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/12/ ... ta/383609/ and this http://www.vtpi.org/safer.pdf

People are just bad at risk assessment. They are more likely to get hurt in a traffic accident on their way to the train station than getting mugged on the train or in the station. On the flip side with the power of the internet I can equally cherry pick studies that say transit brings crime. It's a little too easy to spread misinformation as shown by the resurgence of formally eradicated diseases.

Forgive me but I do not know much of Patco. It seems to be powered by third rail? If yes, does the extension to GlSsboro need to be third rail. Or could it be overhead lines?

pateljones wrote:Forgive me but I do not know much of Patco. It seems to be powered by third rail? If yes, does the extension to Glassboro need to be third rail. Or could it be overhead lines?

PATCO's entirely third rail. Reportedly its design was based on the NHSL (ex-P&W) which is also exclusively third rail, grade-separated, and high-level boarding. However in practice it's closer to DC Metro (which was built several years later), with multi-car trains rather than individual vehicles plus gated boarding areas at all stations long as well as TVMs to serve riders who don't have smart cards. More at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATCO_Speedline

I'm not familiar enough with the PATCO cars to know if pantographs could be retrofitted. That said, my suspicion is that any extension would also be third rail, both for compatibility and because on a metro-type system it offers several advantages versus catenary.

By contrast the N-5s were designed to accept pans but they were never needed and thus never installed. You can see the open area on the car roof in this shot from SEPTA's website: http://www.septa.org/media/short/2013/p ... 10-10d.JPG

It’s very possible to have vehicles draw from either third rail or overhead; both the New Haven Railroad and the Chicago North Shore Electric had equipment at various points with either option. That said, the choice wouldn’t be third rail vs overhead, it would be third rail vs dual-mode electro-diesels.

This would actually be a great proof-of-concept line for battery-electric dual modes. They haven’t been used in America since the 1920s or so, but they’ve never fully gone away in Europe and are enjoying a bit of a comeback. Set up a short charging rail at each station, and you wouldn’t even need a long range battery. Both Stadler and Bombardier sell battery-electrics and at least the Stadler units meet FRA standards - worth considering in my opinion.

The line to Glassboro is going to be a diesel light rail line operated by NJT.

mtuandrew wrote:It’s very possible to have vehicles draw from either third rail or overhead; both the New Haven Railroad and the Chicago North Shore Electric had equipment at various points with either option. That said, the choice wouldn’t be third rail vs overhead, it would be third rail vs dual-mode electro-diesels.

This would actually be a great proof-of-concept line for battery-electric dual modes. They haven’t been used in America since the 1920s or so, but they’ve never fully gone away in Europe and are enjoying a bit of a comeback. Set up a short charging rail at each station, and you wouldn’t even need a long range battery. Both Stadler and Bombardier sell battery-electrics and at least the Stadler units meet FRA standards - worth considering in my opinion.

Thanks and to JeffK for sharing your knowledge. I am excited waiting for DRPAs environmental study to be published. Mr. Nash was in a news article last week and he sounded very enthused about this Patco extension to Glassboro.