RE: PATCO route endorsement

Why does NJ3.org claim that overhead power would be required for grade crossings? LIRR and MNRR both operate with grade crossings and third rail power. Perhaps a little dangerous if people can walk near it, but it works nonetheless

capuzfu wrote:

Why does NJ3.org claim that overhead power would be required for grade crossings? LIRR and MNRR both operate with grade crossings and third rail power. Perhaps a little dangerous if people can walk near it, but it works nonetheless.

This isn't Long Island. The NIMBYism against the proposal ten years ago was bad enough without introducing 3rd rail at grade.

In places where it already exists, people might be accepting. I know that Chicago RTA replaced the overhead with 3rd rail on the Skokie Swift in the last few years.

Here in the Delaware Valley, where Philadelphia is the core city (ever heard the term Philadelphia lawyer?), this not only wouldn't be accepted, it's not even on the table for discussion.

After seeing it posted elsewhere on the internet I attended a meeting of the West Jersey Chapter of the NHRS last night, which included a talk by Bill Vigrass on the study of PATCO's extension to Glassboro. I thought it was a facinating meeting. I thought the presentation was unfortunately similar to the NJ3.org site, which isn't overly surprising, since I got the feeling Mr Vigrass prefers that alternative. It was somewhat disheartening to see the ridership numbers, which are quite low, near LRT levels. According to Bill there is virtually no support for a light rail line amongst the communities along the Woodbury - Glassboro corridor and most folks are looking for their one-seat ride into Philly.

That said a PATCO system modified to be a bit more LRT-like may well be the ideal solution. The NJ3 alignment parallel to the current freight tracks has the highest ridership potential, but if grade separated it would be prohibitively expensive. The solution of course is to leave the grade crossings in and simply work around them, either with third rail gaps or catenary for some length of the route. This will probably make the system a great target for NIMBYs, who already no doubt despise the routing through their backyards and will scream and rant about all the neighborhood children who will be killed on the third rail. Really this project seems like it could come down to whoever can convince the local politicos that Philadelphia to Glassboro rail requires funding. It's imperative that some folks get out ahead of the NIMBYs with the benefits the line will bring. We don't need another 150 morons running into meetings and shouting down every proposal. DVARP has always seemed to center on SEPTA's operations, but is there any way that they and NJ-ARP could coordinate and help with this project? Or have they been helping and I haven't heard about it?

Among the more technical issues discussed were several proposals by attendees to run PATCO across to 30th St Station. Bill Vigrass recounted a plan back in the 1960s or 70s to have PATCO take over the R1 Airport and R3 Elwyn lines from SEPTA and operate those as PATCO lines via an extended Locust St Subway. I was somewhat heartened to hear his stance on track-sharing with CSAO on the line between Woodbury and Glassboro. According to him the double track right of way could accomodate both PATCO and Freight traffic overnight if PATCO could run single-track with the freight train getting the other track. There also was a discussion of routing freight over the former line between Glassboro and Winslow Junction to keep it off the line that NJ3 would place PATCO on. After he stated that a Glassboro route running via the Ben Franklin Bridge would increase the peak hour headway on the current PATCO line and that most of the folks between Woobury and Camden would not use the line to reach Philadelphia I raised the question of whether they'd looked into extending the Broad Street Subway to Woodbury to run this line. According to Mr. Vigrass that proposal had not been studied, but would likely be a bureaucratic morass, with the City of Philadelphia, SEPTA, DRPA, and both states heavily involved in any negotiations.

If anyone else was there I'd love to hear your take on the meeting.

Of course Bill favors NJ3; that's obviously the appropriate plan. It puts the train where the people are. People would have to drive to Route 55 or Route 42 from where they live. People already live along the NJ3 route. It's not a coincidence that the towns are located where the passenger railroad used to be. [truth in posting disclaimer: I live in Collingswood and walk to the Collingswood PATCO station]

When the line was electrified 100 years ago, it was third rail except in Gloucester City, where the residents weren't bright enough to avoid kicking the third rail. Gloucester City had trolley wire. Express trains would coast through; conductors on locals had to raise trolley poles on the fly when approaching Gloucester.

100 years later, residents of all the towns along the railroad are too stupid to avoid touching the third rail, so wherever there would be grade crossings, catenary would have to be installed. This greatly increases operating problems [consider how often SEPTA has downed catenary].

I think paying the extra money for full PATCO would be worth the investment. However, as Bill pointed out, the decision on which projects get Federal assistance depends on many factors, some of which are unrelated to reason. Increasing anticipated cost, even if appropriate for efficient operation, could result in a worthy project languishing without funds.

By the way, Will, thanks for attending. Our typical attendance is in the low 40's; mid 60's if the program is on the PRR, Reading, or P-RSL. There were 75 present Monday night. [I'm a West Jersey Chapter officer].

I thought Bill's answer to your question was interesting: the merit isn't worth considering because it's politically untenable.

[quote from Wdobner's post: "is there any way that ... NJ-ARP could coordinate and help with this project? Or have they been helping and I haven't heard about it?"]

NJ-ARP is actively working on this project. NJ-ARP is well aware that most of the people, money, and influnce in NJ are in the northern part of the state, and they go out of their way to make sure that they pay a lot of attention to South Jersey.

Concerning PATCO type service and freight service operating at the same time, PATCO is heavy rail, and shouldn't suffer from FTA's time separation rules as NJT's River LINE does.

I thought Mr. Vigrass displayed complete grasp of the issues, which comes as no surprise, since he was senior author of the study and authored two of the sixteen prior studies.

How similar would the NJ-3 PATCO option be to MBTA's Blue Line operation?

CComMack wrote:How similar would the NJ-3 PATCO option be to MBTA's Blue Line operation?

Probably more akin to CTAs Skokie Swift before they third-railed it all the way out. The MBTA Blue Line uses catenary, but does not have any grade crossings or crosswalks at stations -- the only reason its catenary is that the City of Revere objected to ground level third rail when the line was constructed in the 1950s.

Are the subway tunnels in Center City and Camden tall enough to allow a car of the current PATCO dimensions to clear with a pan on top? Although, that's probably not a critical issue, since this extension would no doubt involve new vehicles.

wdobner wrote:

If anyone else was there I'd love to hear your take on the meeting.

I was there as well, and am sorry to have missed the opportunity to meet you in person.

I specifically attended to hear BV give his presentation. I'm not a railfan.

I think you and Bob have pretty much summerized what took place. I will discuss some points I found to be interesting.

BV pointed out that the current study was #17 for the same corridor.

BV was fairly clear as to the practical issues of grade seperating trackage through Gloucester City.

It was obvious that no affordable means exist to grade seperate the CSAO freight tracks due the topology of the area. The creeks prevent you from descending early enough distance-wise to be able to build a below-grade cut.

In terms of grade seperating the transit line by building a cut, I had no idea that the water table was only four feet below grade (Haddonfield is @ 60 feet by comparison). As BV stated, this doesn't prevent a cut from being built, but it does make it horribly expensive. So expensive that I can see such a thing being used as the excuse to justify selecting the highway alignments instead.

Gloucester City appears to object to an aerial structure, on the grounds that such a thing would be class discrimination since it seems to them that only Haddonfield warrants a cut by virtue of being a community of the rich. I'll refrain from making any personal observations about the political leadership or residents of Gloucester City at this point.

IMHO, the amount of grade seperation, and the expense that it adds to the NJ-3 Corridor, is the single most important factor (at this time) in determining whether or not NJ-3 will eventually be selected.

I think it was fairly clear from the presentation that the high costs associated with full grade seperation in any of the corridors would not gain a "recommended" rating from the FTA due to the relatively low patronage levels. As BV pointed out, $ per new transit passengers generated is a heavily weighted factor in the FTA evaluation process.

Of the study options, Modified PATCO on NJ-3 is the best performer in this category because of the lower infrastructure costs. For the unaware, there is not a non-grade seperated option for the either of the highway alignments because the current configuration of the highways prevent this.

Modified PATCO should be as much like Light Rail as possible. The State of NJ is broke, DRPA has no excess capital, and the Feds aren't exactly just giving away transit dollars to anybody, let alone blue states.

My prediction: The highway alignments realistically can't be funded, The NIMBYs will agitate the spineless politicians about NJ-3, nothing will happen, and in 2016 we will have study #18 to discuss.

PATCO reported a total of 9.4 million riders in 2005, an increase of 2.3 percent over the prior year, and the best performance since the 2000 fare increase, its first in 16 years.

John J. Matheussen, executive director of the Delaware River Port Authority, which owns PATCO, said he is hopeful the slight increase is the beginning of a trend that will reverse years of flat or declining ridership. This year, $20 million in bridge tolls from motorists crossing the Benjamin Franklin, Walt Whitman, Betsy Ross and Commodore Barry bridges will be used to subsidize PATCO's operating deficit

The largest increase in ridership last year -- 15.5 percent -- occurred at PATCO's Broadway station, which connects with the River LINE at the Walter Rand Transportation Center....

..."We're working very hard to attract new riders to PATCO at times not usually associated with commuters," Matheussen said. "We've been successful marketing the line to evening and weekend events, such as the flower and auto shows and sporting events. We're also working to stimulate transit-oriented development at some stations," he said.

Sunday, for example, a privately run flea market with more than 120 vendors will become a weekly event in the parking lot of PATCO's Woodcrest station. DRPA leased the grounds, including more than one-third of the station's 2,673 parking spaces, to the market organizers, who are veterans of the former Garden State Flea Market...

...If there is enough support from commuters, DRPA will probably seek permanent vendors at multiple stations through public bidding, said Raymond.

By year's end PATCO expects to offer another perk: a new, $11 million fare collection system.

"We don't get many complaints from our customers except about the fare box, an antiquated system that was the state-of-the-art 35 years ago. Since the new system will be much more convenient, we're hoping it draws new customers," said Matheussen.

Courier Post