Swampoodle connection

[penncenter]

Well, yes, I've certainly made some assumptions, however, I think it is important to look at the cost of any of the suggested projects vs what the increase or enahncements in service would be. The cost would be high, and the improvements/enhancements would be small. The little money Septa has needs to be spent on keeping the system running. Deferred maintenance is already too high, with needed projects being put off. Feds have no money, either, particularly for improvements to an area that is already served pretty well.

If the CH service is too expensive to maintain, Septa should seriously consider shutting down one of the lines. Ridership would not suffer that much relative to the savings. Anyone know why that hasn't been done already?

I think the physical plant Septa has is the physical plant Septa is going to have for the forseeable future. The best they can do is try to utilize the assets as best as possible and get more people into the existing seats.

[Patrick Boylan]

service levels much higher (if you think service levels are adequate, many would disagree...every 90 minutes on weekends)
...
it's not like you can't take a bus there already.

I'm not sure increasing weekend service i's a good example of an advantage to gain from the Swampoodle connection. Isn't there enough capacity on weekends to increase service without any infrastructure investment?

I'm willing to bet many of the Chestnut Hill east and west passengers are a lot like the majority of regional rail riders, that is they probably won't consider taking a bus to the train, but would either forego the trip or drive the whole way instead.

[CComMack]

It seems to me that, while a Swampoodle Connection project is, on the surface, about CHW, most of the potential gains accrue to other services, most especially the Trenton Line, which can claim opened slots on the NEC approaching 30th Street. (Amtrak and NJT theoretically could as well, but they have bottlenecks at the North River and across South Jersey, respectively, to deal with.) CHW would merely trade a few minutes' faster access to 30th Street and UCity for faster access to Temple and Market East; I doubt that will be a momentous shift. Anyone for whom those 5 minutes are a dealbreaker, probably doesn't live in West Mt. Airy to begin with. But the congestion relief/opportunity for new service on the NEC is valuable to longer-distance commuters coming from some of SEPTA's highest-boarding stations: Trenton, Cornwells, Torresdale.

So, presumably Swampoodle therefore should sit on a shelf until there's demand for a serious change in SEPTA's service frequency. Since presumably Norristown demand will go up along with, or even before, Trenton demand, perhaps the primary goal should be a flyover/duckunder for Norristown outbounds to cross over the ex-Reading trunk without fouling it, with the CHW connection as a secondary selling point?

[#5 - Dyre Ave]

Well, yes, I've certainly made some assumptions, however, I think it is important to look at the cost of any of the suggested projects vs what the increase or enahncements in service would be. The cost would be high, and the improvements/enhancements would be small. The little money Septa has needs to be spent on keeping the system running. Deferred maintenance is already too high, with needed projects being put off. Feds have no money, either, particularly for improvements to an area that is already served pretty well.

But isn't SEPTA already doing that? They rehabbed the Frankford and Market Street elevated stations on the MFL. They are rehabbing stations on the BSL. And what about the new Silverliner V cars and trackless trolleys? They are using TIGER funds to do much needed rehabs.

If the CH service is too expensive to maintain, Septa should seriously consider shutting down one of the lines. Ridership would not suffer that much relative to the savings. Anyone know why that hasn't been done already?

I think the physical plant Septa has is the physical plant Septa is going to have for the forseeable future. The best they can do is try to utilize the assets as best as possible and get more people into the existing seats.

You call abandonment of one of the CH lines utilizing SEPTA's assets as best as possible? If anything, that's taking existing seats away from people and telling them, "Please don't ride SEPTA. Please get into your cars and drive into Center City." You want to utilize the existing physical plant as best as possible, it's going to cost something to do that. If it's too expensive for the RRD to keep up maintenance of one of the CH lines, abandonment is not the answer. In Northwest Philly with stable, middle-class neighborhoods in Germantown and East Mt. Airy and LaSalle University and bus connections at eight of its nine stops? I also have to disagree with your previous post that a branch of the BSL being extended onto the CHE would get NIMBY'ed to death. CHE goes through more middle-class neighborhoods, unlike CHW, whose neighborhoods are arguably more upscale, so I think residents living along the CHE might appreciate having a more frequent-running line that doesn't require riding a bus to Erie or Olney for the subway. Yes, it may require spending extra money, but it would be utilizing an existing right-of-way. Isn't that what SEPTA should be doing, as opposed to getting rid of infrastructure?

By the way, you don't even have to install third rail on a BSL-to-CHE extension, something you mentioned in a previous post. They can use subway cars capable of running on third rail and catenary (if a project like this is ever green-lighted, it'll be time to replace the current BSL cars by that time anyway). Boston already does this on its Blue Line and has for decades. And a connecting tunnel from Wister to Broad and Erie can't be super expensive. It's an easement and portal between Wister and Wayne Junction on the existing CHE line, then a straight shot under Germantown Avenue to the flyover junction near Broad and Erie.

[penncenter]

Dyre,

Thanks for the response.

Yes, they are instituting the improvements you mention, and that is all good. More needs to be done with the bread-and-butter maintenance (new sub stations, replacing cat, bridges, etc), and embarking on an expensive enhancement that will (perhaps) marginally improve the situtation of CH riders, seems like a misallocation of capital.

My comment on the current physical plant not expanding anytime soon, was a realization that the system needs to maximize the assets it already has. Potentially shutting down one of the CH lines was a response to a poster saying that the CHW costs Septa a lot to maintain, and one has to question what the ridership is, and what the cost recovery is. Not sure how you relate those two concepts. Previous posters have stated that Septa dumps a lot of money into the CHW alone, and doesn't get a lot back for its investment in maintenance, etc. I imagine they mean return of investment via more ridership and increased revenues. I believe in utilizing the current assets to the max, and Septa needs to do more to lure more riders off the roads and onto their trains---systemwide. That being said, do you think there might be an oversaturation of service in the CH community given its population and the demand for commuting service into Center City? Just how many riders are there in CH going to CC everyday? Is it really enough to warrant 2 lines? I am not sure it ever was, and the PRR line was built as a competitive response to the Reading's line. One line could service that community, although they've become so used to 2 lines, that it would be seen as a real "hardship" to have to travel the extra mile (or so) to a different station.

In terms of it costing Septa "something" to run the lines...well, yes, they "spend" money systemwide offering service, as the fares collected do not recoup its costs. Regional rail only works because it is subsidized. If it were a business, it would shut down. In doing so, Septa needs to at least try to "lose" as little as possible. If running 2 CH lines is prohibitive, perhaps picking one and making it really good is a better strategy, however, I do not claim to know if that is the answer. I happen to like both lines there, but I was simply throwing out possibilities.

A tunnel from Wister to Broad and Erie is a little over 2 miles. That would cost a fortune. Cost estimates for tunnels in city centers is about $1 Bil/mile. This is not Center City, but this isn't close to open country either. Do you think Septa can stomach this kind of money for a subway extension---when a perfectly serviceable train line already exists there? How will they justify this expense? And if they could, where would the funds come from? And for what? A little more frequent service for a slice of population? CH residents should be happy (and may already be) that they have a train line already available to them. Newtown people would love a line.

Yes, the population on the CHE line is different than the population on the CHW line. I still think you'd have some real work to do to convince local residents that it would be a good thing. Just my humble opinion.

[Matthew Mitchell]

By the way, you don't even have to install third rail on a BSL-to-CHE extension, something you mentioned in a previous post. They can use subway cars capable of running on third rail and catenary (if a project like this is ever green-lighted, it'll be time to replace the current BSL cars by that time anyway). Boston already does this on its Blue Line and has for decades.

You greatly underestimate the technical challenges of such a conversion.

If you leave the current AC power system up, you need a fleet of subway cars with both AC and DC power capabilities. I don't know if they even exist (hard enough to do with main line railway trains). The AC part is particularly tough because it's high-voltage and needs more insulating as well as needing a big main transformer. If you decide to try and use the existing wires to deliver 600 VDC, you first have to make sure the wires are big enough to carry the higher currents needed (Ohm's law), you need at least a couple of new substations, and you probably need to modify the signal system to get along nicely with DC return currents.

[Bill R.]

By the way, you don't even have to install third rail on a BSL-to-CHE extension, something you mentioned in a previous post. They can use subway cars capable of running on third rail and catenary (if a project like this is ever green-lighted, it'll be time to replace the current BSL cars by that time anyway). Boston already does this on its Blue Line and has for decades.

You greatly underestimate the technical challenges of such a conversion.

Agreed.

Dyre, I posted the laundry list of required capital elements for the conversion of CHW to BSS system standards to illustrate how incredibly expensive and complex such an undertaking would be. Despite your assertions of lower cost due to the existing junction at BSS Erie, the other elements remain the same, and some elements may cost even more due to the scope involved with CHE. As a reult, CHE conversion would not be a significantly cheaper project. Maybe I'm offbase, but I suspect you'd be lucky to spend less than $1 Billion (as in billion with a "B") for each branch conversion.

If you leave the current AC power system up, you need a fleet of subway cars with both AC and DC power capabilities. I don't know if they even exist (hard enough to do with main line railway trains).

Matt, I don't know of a subway example, but the light rail vehicles in Karlsruhe, Germany operate from both D.C. overhead while in street running mode and A.C. overhead while in tram-train mode on the mailine railway segments of the system. Interestingly enough, the LRV uses the same pantograph for both A.C and D.C power collection, with the transition occuring as the LRV passes through a segment of unpowered catenary that can be energized in the event of an emergency.

[Clearfield]

Maybe I'm offbase, but I suspect you'd be lucky to spend less than $1 Billion (as in billion with a "B") for each branch conversion.

That's about $1 Billion (as in billion with a "B") less than than the funds available for each branch conversion

[penncenter]

I was thinking about Spock's quote at the bottom of Clearfield's post while thinking about all this over the last couple days, but I didn't think most people would know the reference. But it is spot-on appropriate.

Public transportation is about the greater good, and how you can satisfy most of the people most efficiently. What we are dealing with today is an aged and outdated infrastructure designed and built for population trends and lifestyles 70-80-100 years ago. BUT, the alternative is not having any of it, and starting comletely from scratch. THAT cost would be ridiculously prohibitive. So we have what we have, and it is actually pretty good. Its old, and needs updating, but the route sytem covers lots of the population. Populations have grown around the lines, so there are people to fill seats. Duplicative lines like the CH lines are what they are. Want to keep them both? Want to cut one? All decsions we don't have the info to make.

We can however, ballpark on the back of a napkin, what the big picture needs are for the sytem just to keep functioning at a servicable level. And the improvements/maintenance needs are substantial. This is just to keep us "even." Where does the money come from? Fare increases are met with much resistance. But the fares charged now don't even cover the operating expenses. Running the system is expensive. It doesn't work for eveyone going to work everyday. Driving is better for many. But taking the train COULD be better for many of those drivers, they just don't want to deal with the hassles (potential, percieved, or real). Cost is a no-brainer, as gas prices go up, property taxes (therefore parking rates) go up, automobile operating costs go up, the train makes more and more sense. The only way to increase service and frequency is to increase ridership. If the trains were packed, revenue would go up. Simple. And more projects could be considered.

Talk about big infrastructure projects that don't impact that many people are just never going to happen. Its nice to think about a Swampoodle connector to make a CHW run more efficient (for some. For those currently going ot 30th St first, using the Reading approach would probably cost them time), but how many people ride the CHW line everyday? Its just not that many. And this project won't all of a sudden open the floodagtes of new ridership. Same with a CHE conversion to hook into the BSS. It would save a few minutes, and give some additional frequency, but who does that benefit? Morning and evening commuters are a transit line's biggest patrons, and that service peaks during those times. One doesn't "need" service every 10 minutes even during peak times. You adapt your travel to when you need to be at work and what the times are the train leaves. Pretty simple, and there are enough options. It just can't be perfect for everyone, but it is close enough.

Does anyone really think converting the CHE line to a subway spur of the BSS will dramatically increase ridership from the community? It MAY increase it some, but it could actually decrease it some. Many workers may prefer the train to the subway, and as the business/office corridors are east/west---along the commuter tunnel line, 30th, SS, and ME may be more efficient for them. BSS stop at City Hall is ok, but the spine of that route serves a completely different worker---and demographic. Maybe the old CHE train rider now goes over to the CHW line, increasing the ridership there. Now you have the same scenario as if you simply closed one of the CH lines and saved all the operating expense. A new CHE subway line better be chock full on every run, because the expense to build it would be enormous. That money, if available, could go a long way in the Septa system to the benefit of so many more.

The system in place is pretty good. Most cities would love the route structure and frequency of the Septa system. Tweaking the trackwork so trains can run faster is needed. The runs still take too long for their length. And stations could be shut down if the ridership is not there. Many of the city stations are too close to one another. They could always be reopend if demand returns.

Has anyone ever seen a cost estimate for a Swampoodle connector? Has Septa formally studied it and put a number on it?

[Clearfield]

Has anyone ever seen a cost estimate for a Swampoodle connector? Has Septa formally studied it and put a number on it?

I don't know but since the CHW bridge over the ex Reading Main Line needs to be replaced anyway, the bridge could be eliminated by the connection, and both lines accessed via the Norristown branch. The only station to bite the dust would be the North Philly CHW station which has little ridership now, not to mention eliminating the switching bottleneck at N Philly.

[nomis]

Clearfield, do you have numbers for both halves of the North Philly station? All references i can see is for the combined R7 + R8 counts.

[Clearfield]

Clearfield, do you have numbers for both halves of the North Philly station? All references i can see is for the combined R7 + R8 counts.

I do not have anything current, as I am no longer a CAC member. DVARP may have them.

[Matthew Mitchell]

Clearfield, do you have numbers for both halves of the North Philly station? All references i can see is for the combined R7 + R8 counts.

I do not have anything current, as I am no longer a CAC member. DVARP may have them.

Ridership by line? It's there in the detail files of the RRD Census, so this is from 2009.

Weekdays:
R7 inbound at North Phila: 166 detrain, 11 board
R7 outbound at North Phila: 127 board, 14 detrain

R8 inbound at North Phila: 24 detrain, 1 board
R8 outbound at North Phila: 10 board, 9 detrain

[Matthew Mitchell]

Has anyone ever seen a cost estimate for a Swampoodle connector? Has Septa formally studied it and put a number on it?

If they have, it's at least 30 years old, and would be of little relevance now.

[Clearfield]

Has anyone ever seen a cost estimate for a Swampoodle connector? Has Septa formally studied it and put a number on it?

If they have, it's at least 30 years old, and would be of little relevance now.

Any new estimate "should" be balanced against the cost to replace the old PRR bridge.