RE: PATCO route endorsement

The (place your own negative adjectives here) of the Courier Post editorial board have endorsed a RT 55 alignment for a PATCO extension into Gloucester County.

The editorial:

http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/p ... 10333/1046

shows a complete lack of understanding of how rail transit works.

The link to the Editorial is no longer active at this time.

A summary of the Editorial Board position as follows:

1) The Riverline didn't work primarily because it went through older towns - (the Editorial Board seems to forget about all the other problems associated with the implementation of RiverLine service).

2) A line via Woodbury to Glassboro won't work because the Riverline didn't work.

3) Because of suburban sprawl, the line should rely almost exclusively on drivers.

Boom towns. Oh yeah... booming Glassboro.

Yeah, glassboro may not be booming, but I still haven't found any "town" in marlton

mount laurel isn't much of a "town" either

Actually, there is a nice remnant of "old" marlton, just off of 73 & 70.... really justa few blocks of old-timey houses....but you could walk around it in like 10 minutes....Moorestown's a neat little old timey town as well....

This <expletive> newspaper just doesn't get it..........

I don't know where all those people come from but the traffic on NJ Rts 73 and 70 is quite congested. A rail system built parallel to those routes would attract the attention of a lot of motorists stuck in traffic trying to go to or return from the Delaware River crossings. Whether they live in Marlton, Medford, Mount Laurel, Cherry Hill or Moorestown they have to spend a good deal of time sitting and wondering why the light rail went from Camden to Trenton rather than from South Jersey to Phila.

And I spend a good deal of time wondering why they'd move to an area like that with no mass transit. Their problem, if you ask me -- NOT mine.

Well, one thing's for sure: SEPTA will never serve Gloucester County...

Problem is, with no convenient right of way near route 70, the only way to serve that area would be an EL over route 70. The nearest rail alignment is well north of that area, branching off the ac line through Mapleshade and Moorestown to mount holly. Can't tell if the row is intact into camden. Really makes the NJ-3 alignment to glassboro seem like a slam dunk, with stops for highway park and rides as well as town centres.

The article begins with the totally flawed concept that using the existing rail ROW somehow would shortchange drivers. That alignment still makes allowances for park and rides along Rt55, and also opens up the option of using existing towns for a transit oriented development option.

kevikens wrote:I don't know where all those people come from but the traffic on NJ Rts 73 and 70 is quite congested. A rail system built parallel to those routes would attract the attention of a lot of motorists stuck in traffic trying to go to or return from the Delaware River crossings. Whether they live in Marlton, Medford, Mount Laurel, Cherry Hill or Moorestown they have to spend a good deal of time sitting and wondering why the light rail went from Camden to Trenton rather than from South Jersey to Phila.

There may not be a 'downtown' Mt Laurel, Marlton, or Cherry Hill, but there's plenty of relatively low density subdivisions, more than enough to overwhelm the truly inadequate road and transit network. Cherry Hill 'tried' to create a downtown on the site of the Garden State Park, but just wound up with more condos and Big box stores. The only saving grace for this area is PATCO, without which our traffic woes would be truly hopeless.

In addition to the PATCO Glassboro extension I too would like to see some fixed guideway transit along the Rt70/73 corridor. As an interim solution I think it'd make sense to build a Riverline extension along the rail line which tinmad dog mentioned running out to Mt Holly. This of course builds the line that the Courier Post claims should have been built in the first place (of course they'd bitch about that too). Eventually transit probably should be built along Rt70, using the median, elevated sections, and some street running, but it makes a bit more sense to miss some of the crowding for an easily built rail line (not that Rt38 doesn't see heavy traffic).

Ryanov wrote:And I spend a good deal of time wondering why they'd move to an area like that with no mass transit. Their problem, if you ask me -- NOT mine.

Yes, so why should we extend any transit? Why bother building MOM, the West Shore Line, HBLRT, or anything else? After all, there was no transit there when those people moved in, so why should we have to pay for their transit improvements? Not sure if you realized it but southern NJ still is NJ and yes, we deserve our pittance of transit improvements next to northern NJ's litany of projects.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Well, one thing's for sure: SEPTA will never serve Gloucester County...

Not at all. That'd be like saying 'SEPTA will never serve Wilmington DE'. I would argue that it makes more sense to tunnel under the Delaware south of Pattison Station on the Broad Street Subway and bring this line into Philadelphia that way rather than have to go all the way up to Camden and across the bridge. Even with the trains making all stops on the BSS they'd still get passengers to 12th and Locust faster than if those trains ran via the Ben Franklin Bridge. Also, by running via the BSS slots are left open at 16th and Locust to turn Broad Ridge Spur trains should PATCO and SEPTA's signaling and fare systems ever be reconciled. PATCO and SEPTA are already virtually the same system, the only difference is the obsolete signaling and fare control systems they both use. Since both are pretty much in need of replacement it only makes sense to upgrade both to a compatible system and restore interoperability between PATCO and the Broad Street Subway. With a rebuild PATCO's cars will be up for replacement in 20 years, which is about the same time the BSS cars will be up for replacement, and quite possibly about the same time that both the PATCO Glassboro and Roosevelt Blvd begin operation (if we start very soon). It's quite possible that both extensions could be opened in less than 20 years, which actually is perfect since the cars ordered for them can form the basis of the next series of cars to replace both the PATCO and B-IV cars with a single compatible design.

That'd be like saying 'SEPTA will never serve Wilmington DE'

Apples and oranges. SEPTA operating along NJ 55 that deep into NJ, or on any other NJT- or CSA-owned extant rail artery in NJ, is something that NJT wouldn't allow. DE doesn't have its own equivalent of NJTR; and the SEPTA service there is for a mere two stations. (Besides, SEPTA's been out of the diesel ops business for 24 years; and that service was Conrail-operated anyhow.)

(I haven't forgotten SEPTA's "Crusader", something that fell by the wayside after Conrail divested its passenger ops...a singular service notwithstanding...)

Irish Chieftain wrote:SEPTA operating along NJ 55 that deep into NJ, or on any other NJT- or CSA-owned extant rail artery in NJ, is something that NJT wouldn't allow.... (Besides, SEPTA's been out of the diesel ops business for 24 years; and that service was Conrail-operated anyhow.)

What?

I proposed that the DRPA contract with SEPTA to provide the service to Glassboro via an extension of the Broad Street Subway. The DRPA's plans currently have them extending PATCO from Walter Rand (or just south of there) to Glassboro. This plan is somewhat wasteful in that every commuter traveling to the Locust St stations will be taken a few miles out of their way just to go across the slow Ben Franklin Bridge. By extending the BSS past the Naval Shipyard (already on SEPTA's distant plans), then under the Delaware to meet up with the existing ROW PATCO's NJ-3 proposal would use we can save commuters a significant amount of time every day and create easier trips from both NJ and PA to attractions such as the Sports Complex and the proposed PNBC Casino site.

PATCO and the Broad Street Subway are for all intents and purposes the same thing. They may use different voltages and signaling systems, but they're otherwise the same operation. Both signalling systems are obsolete and I'd be willing to bet the BSS's power supply is also obsolete. With the possibility that both the BSS and PATCO fleets will be up for replacement in 20 years it only makes sense to equip both fleets with compatible systems, rationalize the fare system to allow barrier-free transfers from PATCO to the MFL, and eventually operate mechanically similar cars in both BSS and PATCO service. This would be an ideal situation for the Glassboro extension to be carried out as an extension of the BSS rather than the PATCO line.

The PATCO extension is a DRPA project and accordingly I do not see an issue with having either PATCO trains run in the BSS up into the city or having some BSS trains run to Glassboro. The City of Philadelphia owns the subways and surely they could be made to see the logic behind allowing both PATCO and SEPTA in the same tunnels. I'm not quite sure where you're drawing NJT into this. AFAIK no commuter rail options are being considered, and the proposed diesel operations are at least 30 to 40 years off at the rate we do things around here. Setting up an operating scenario wherein the riders are inconvenienced because in 30 years we *might* extend the line to Vineland is ludicrous. Lets cross that bridge when we get to it. For now the immediate problem is getting commuters from Glassboro to Center City and back in the most efficient manner, not some extension of that line.

If you want to talk about the extension of the line from Glassboro to Vineland and the proposed diesel service then perhaps something could be done wherein a "FRA compatible" DMU meets the PATCO or BSS line at Glassboro and carries the passengers to Vineland or beyond. The ACL already sees more riders boarding southbound at Lindenwold than it carries on the whole of it's Philadelphia to Lindenwold section. Perhaps NJT could purchase some land around Winslow Junction to set up a small yard to store and perform minor repairs on Atlantic City, Cape May, Ocean City, Glassboro-Vineland, and Middlesex-Ocean-Monmouth NYP/HOB to AC trains which everyone likes to hope will be the end result of MOM. This way NJT wouldn't have to operate the ACL as a complete satellite and they'd have enough rolling stock down here (hopefully most of it consisting of some form of FRA compatible DMUs) that such an expenditure in infrastructure would be justified. Of course now not only am I wildly off topic both for this thread and for this board, but we're looking at 30+ years in the future, and then only assuming that NJ realizes the merits of rail construction, we have the money for it, and that Southern NJ gets the rail which suits it. I'd be happy to continue this line of the thought on the NJT board and spare our PA comrades the trouble of reading about more rail lines which stand a snowball's chance in hell.

On a completely different subject I noticed that the Courier Post has a letter to the editor from a one "William Ritzler". I'm not sure if this is the same person who originated this thread, although I'd almost be willing to bet it is. The letter is extremely well written and conveys the arguments for the NJ-3 alignment in an extremely coherent and cogent manner. I too wrote a letter to the editor on that particular article, was called by the Post about it, and, while I'm disappointed my letter was not published, Mr. Ritzler's letter does a much better job refuting the specious claims made by the editorial in it's support of the Rt55 alignment. If this is 'Bill R' then congratulations sir both on getting your letter published and on so totally rebuffing their claims about the superiority of the autocentric routing.

The letter: http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/p ... 00305/1047

NJT still would not allow SEPTA to do it. BSS is SEPTA. PATCO/DRPA isn't about to allow SEPTA onto its system either.

I'm not quite sure where you're drawing NJT into this

Because once you are in NJ, you are in potential NJT territory, that's why. Conrail days are over. Especially if you go off the NJ 55 alignment, which is supposed to be reserved for PATCO.

PATCO and the Broad Street Subway are for all intents and purposes the same thing. They may use different voltages and signaling systems, but they're otherwise the same operation

As you like to say, "what?"

Irish Chieftain wrote:NJT still would not allow SEPTA to do it. BSS is SEPTA. PATCO/DRPA isn't about to allow SEPTA onto its system either.

I never said it HAD to be SEPTA providing the operations, but from a logistic sense it'd work out a bit better to just run BSS trains through rather than have PATCO provide the operators for special trains. For all I know maybe they could run the PATCO trains up to the Hunting Park tail tracks and turn them there. Were SEPTA and PATCO to operate both the BSS and the new line cooperatively it could make sense to operate some trains on the BSS over the existing route, with others running through from Glassboro to Southampton Rd on the Roosevelt Blvd line. The Blvd subway, if built, will likely mirror PATCO's operations quite well, so a replacement fleet consisting of two or three doored cars with more commuter rail like seating might make sense. In any event even if no through-routing is done it'd at least make sense for DRPA and SEPTA to make both the BSS and PATCO fully compatible once again. They could save money on new rolling stock purchases through a larger order of vehicles with nearly the same specifications.

I guess I have a less pessimistic view of the regional bureaucracies than you do. It's clear NJT doesn't really care about Southern NJ. They should just back off, run their ACL, Riverline, and various bus lines, perhaps build us a Mt Holly Riverline extension and look at far Southern Jersey DMU service. They need to let a SEPTA/DRPA joint agency run the fixed guideway mass transit. The DRPA is the only one with a real plan for moving NJ commuters into Philadelphia at this point, so why NJT would even bother sticking their nose into this system is beyond me. They (and the folks in Trenton who dole out their budget) only stand to benefit from getting out of the DRPA's way and allowing this line to be built. Whether SEPTA or PATCO operates the line it will be owned by the DRPA and NJ State will have their fair say in it's operations. In terms of increasing regional mobility it is hard to beat the potential posed by an extension of the Broad Street Subway into NJ. In one fell swoop we'd gain excellent access both to Center City and the Sports Complex, and potentially access to all points up into Northeast Philly.

Because once you are in NJ, you are in potential NJT territory, that's why. Conrail days are over. Especially if you go off the NJ 55 alignment, which is supposed to be reserved for PATCO.

So now we're preserving the existing rail ROW into Glassboro for some NJT passenger train which they're not even thinking about? After all the arguments Bill R has offered for the NJ-3 and against the horribly flawed Rt55 NJ-2 alignment you're going to force us onto it? NJT has never even discussed any rail service to Glassboro other than a Riverline extension which IMHO would be too slow, too small and not get people where they're going. Where would your commuter rail go? Would you somehow route it up to the DelAir Bridge, or just dump the commuters in Camden and hope they made a connection to the existing PATCO line? I suppose a tunnel could be dug for this commuter line, but where would you end up? There's very little down in South Philadelphia which gets you where you need to be, you'd end up going over to the 25th St elevated and up into 30th St most likely.

I know you're complaining about passenger rail service because you'd be a fool if you were griping about freight service. CSX/NS/CSAO are not stupid, if they need those tracks down to Beezley's Point, Deepwater or any other point in Southern NJ they'll hold onto them. The existing ROW through Woodbury and on down into Glassboro is in many cases wide enough to accommodate more than the existing one or two tracks. In some cases there are sections of single track with two or three bridges adjacent to it. The PATCO extension can easily be run over these tracks, with elevated sections added where it is necessary to vault over some of the narrower ROW segments. As with the original PATCO line it is possible that in some locations the freight tracks may be grade separated along with the rapid transit tracks. Of course where the ROW is good and broad the rapid transit trains can be brought to the same level as the freight tracks and a few streets can be crossed at grade to save money versus a total grade separation. This would of course be a compromise between the two forms NJ3.org presents. By grade separating the rapid transit from the freight tracks in locations where three or more tracks cannot be accommodated DRPA and CSAO can ensure that despite the PATCO extension taking what some here would argue is the preferred route the freight traffic will not be impeded.

If you have any argument other than 'it will take a ROW away from NJT commuter rail' or 'it will take tracks away from freight traffic or saddle both the passenger and freight traffic with time-share restrictions' I'd love to hear them. I believe that with the limited elevated construction alternative I've proposed here we can have PATCO rapid transit trains running alongside freight traffic for a relatively low price (say 1.5 to 1.6 billion dollars) without any worries about the ROW being lost for freight traffic and such.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

Wdobner wrote:PATCO and the Broad Street Subway are for all intents and purposes the same thing. They may use different voltages and signaling systems, but they're otherwise the same operation

As you like to say, "what?"

I don't see the confusion here. Both PATCO and the Broad Street Subway are born of the same specifications. Outside of the upgraded signals and power system of PATCO they're virtually identical. At this point both systems likely need their signaling systems overhauled and the BSS probably needs its power supply system similarly rebuilt. With the possibility that both the B-IVs and PATCO's fleet will be up for retirement in 20 years it only makes sense to rebuild both systems to be compatible with one another and then purchase a fleet of mechanically similar if not fully compatible cars for both lines. Not only do the engineering costs drop, but through-routing options open up, especially with something like the Broad Street Subway being extended to New Jersey. Doing this keeps the turning capacity at 15th 16th and Locust Sts for SEPTA Broad-Ridge Spur trains to be turned alongside PATCO trains while NJ commuters are provided with superior access to the major job center along Market St. west of Broad.

Wdobner wrote:

Ryanov wrote:And I spend a good deal of time wondering why they'd move to an area like that with no mass transit. Their problem, if you ask me -- NOT mine.

Yes, so why should we extend any transit? Why bother building MOM, the West Shore Line, HBLRT, or anything else? After all, there was no transit there when those people moved in, so why should we have to pay for their transit improvements? Not sure if you realized it but southern NJ still is NJ and yes, we deserve our pittance of transit improvements next to northern NJ's litany of projects.

I didn't say that. I said that those folks that are sitting on 70/73 every day have no right to complain about the traffic -- they moved to an area with no mass transit. That's not saying something shouldn't ever be built there, but they have no business poo pooing the RiverLINE because they think that their needs should have been catered to instead. There's pretty much traffic wherever you go in NJ -- almost any build is acceptable at this point.

wdobner wrote:

I'm not sure if this is the same person who originated this thread, although I'd almost be willing to bet it is.

Yes, I am the author of the letter. Thanks for your congratulations, and congratulations to you for getting your letter published in the CP as well.

In addition to the PATCO Glassboro extension I too would like to see some fixed guideway transit along the Rt70/73 corridor.

The (admittedly unrealistic) solution for RT 70 is to branch off the PATCO mainline before Woodcrest, going northeast in I-295, and then turning east along RT 70 to Medford. At the very least, you would probably have to tunnel from I-295 to just east of the Marlton Circle.

By extending the BSS past the Naval Shipyard (already on SEPTA's distant plans), then under the Delaware to meet up with the existing ROW PATCO's NJ-3 proposal would use we can save commuters a significant amount of time every day and create easier trips from both NJ and PA to attractions such as the Sports Complex and the proposed PNBC Casino site.

I can't imagine the circumstance for which funding would be available to allow SEPTA to extend the BSS under the Delaware. Forgetting SEPTA's likely disdain for such a project, the cost of getting from Pattison Avenue to Woodbury alone would at least cost double the existing GlouCo project estimates.