PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by Londonee

In terms of the Paoli Thorndale context I find the notion that subway cars couldn't navigate the tracks almost impossible to believe. And several (most?) stations along that route already have raised platforms. Regardless, of course there would have to be retrofitting work done to the existing infrastructure... including 3rd rail, etc.

It's less about a perfect fit at the moment and more about utilizing existing infrastructure and ROWs to modernize, improve and expand service for the 21st century.

How is retrofitting 40 year old subway cars modernizing the infrastructure?
Regional Rail service is fine the way it is, sans frequency. If there were more trains per day it would be perfect. The Silverliners are comfortable and quick. The Sprinters are high speed trains for a modern age. The last thing we need on the R5 is a bunch of tiny and cramped subway cars. Only about 5 stations on the P/T line have raised platforms.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by Londonee

In terms of the Paoli Thorndale context I find the notion that subway cars couldn't navigate the tracks almost impossible to believe. And several (most?) stations along that route already have raised platforms. Regardless, of course there would have to be retrofitting work done to the existing infrastructure... including 3rd rail, etc.

It's less about a perfect fit at the moment and more about utilizing existing infrastructure and ROWs to modernize, improve and expand service for the 21st century.

If this were done, turning rail routes into subway type lines, what would the benefits be, and how would that change lend itself to expanding the service area? Headway increase is as 'simple' as buying more rail cars and staffing them. Raised platforms would be good to have for rail cars, and if the platforms are being rebuilt I doubt it would be that complicated to do so in such a way that only ticket holders could access the platform which in turn could allow faster boarding and exiting. Turning them into third rail subway lines seems like it would great expense and give little added benefit.

[Philly-Drew]

Happy holidays everyone.

I sure do wish all this awesome transport talk was on the Philadelphia transportation thread.

Too bad after all these years that transpo thread still isn’t listed properly in searches.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by City Wide

If this were done, turning rail routes into subway type lines, what would the benefits be, and how would that change lend itself to expanding the service area? Headway increase is as 'simple' as buying more rail cars and staffing them. Raised platforms would be good to have for rail cars, and if the platforms are being rebuilt I doubt it would be that complicated to do so in such a way that only ticket holders could access the platform which in turn could allow faster boarding and exiting. Turning them into third rail subway lines seems like it would great expense and give little added benefit.

Again, retrofitting trains so that they can run on both catenaries and third rails is not that big of a deal. see this video.https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hyb...3827C84807DE2AE4CC1E3827C84807&FORM=VIRE
the benefit, as particular to the chestnut hill west line, is that it cuts down on some of the service overlap between it and the chestnut hill east line, and effectively becomes the northwest branch of the bsl. you can get to the stadiums, and hopefully eventually the navy yard, without having to transfer.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

Again, retrofitting trains so that they can run on both catenaries and third rails is not that big of a deal. see this video.https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hyb...3827C84807DE2AE4CC1E3827C84807&FORM=VIRE
the benefit, as particular to the chestnut hill west line, is that it cuts down on some of the service overlap between it and the chestnut hill east line, and effectively becomes the northwest branch of the bsl. you can get to the stadiums, and hopefully eventually the navy yard, without having to transfer.

World peace is also great. None of these proposals is even close to being plausible in this current funding environment. The only major expansion on the table is the K of P extension. Even the BSL extension to the Navy Yard has lost steam and is nothing more than a few high priced feasibility studies at this point. Realistic improvements are things like a bus network redesign, replacing the cars on the BSL and the remaining SL4 cars on RR, fixing city Hall station, improving the green line with new vehicles and full ADA access, etc. I also like the idea of bringing back Chestnut Street Transitway and barring cars from that street to speed bus service.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by cardeza

World peace is also great.

wut?

Originally Posted by cardeza

None of these proposals is even close to being plausible in this current funding environment. The only major expansion on the table is the K of P extension. Even the BSL extension to the Navy Yard has lost steam and is nothing more than a few high priced feasibility studies at this point. Realistic improvements are things like a bus network redesign, replacing the cars on the BSL and the remaining SL4 cars on RR, fixing city Hall station, improving the green line with new vehicles and full ADA access, etc. I also like the idea of bringing back Chestnut Street Transitway and barring cars from that street to speed bus service.

chw running in the bsl is not an expansion per se, just a re-routing. it is *the* cheapest thing to do of all. I don't know why they haven't done it yet.

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

wut?


chw running in the bsl is not an expansion per se, just a re-routing. it is *the* cheapest thing to do of all. I don't know why they haven't done it yet.

Because they don't have to? Service is quite alright as it is. A little more frequency wouldn't hurt, but it has a strong ridership core.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

wut?


chw running in the bsl is not an expansion per se, just a re-routing. it is *the* cheapest thing to do of all. I don't know why they haven't done it yet.

Its probably the 8 or 9 figure price tag associated with such a project. Not only would the actual infrastructure costs be huge- you would need new rolling stock to accommodate the new service. They studied this a while ago and found the land acquisition/construction costs to be prohibitive.

Much more realistic solution would be some form of express bus service akin to whats on the Blvd serving NW Philly starting from Olney station.

[Nova08]

Originally Posted by Londonee

If this were to happen isn't the better idea not to run current regional rail cars on the rapid transit tracks, but to run rapid transit vehicles on the regional rail tracks? Effectively the model that the DC Metro is - where your "regional rail" is basically a subway system with the headways and car designs to match. I mean, heck, Patco is effectively S. Jersey's regional rail network that utilizes this concept. It kind of feels like the old, traditional heavy, slow, regional rail cars are out-moded by the nimbler variant subway-style like you see in London and DC.

Maybe not every train line would need this - but ones like the Paoli-Thorndale line would see dramatic improvement in service quality if they switched to more nimble, quicker vehicles with 15-20 minute headways and multiple door exit/entry on raised platforms. With stops basically every mile or two once you hit Bryn Mawr the plodding, slow acceleration, slow loading train network is just anathema to logical public transportation ideas.

I think the shorter regional rail lines like CHW, CHE, and Fox Chase are much better suited as subway lines (assuming the infrastructure was in place). They are short with stations close together. But lines like Paoli/Thorndale are better utilized as heavy rail. Not to say they do not have stations that are relatively close, but they are better suited to take advantage of higher speeds that subways cannot achieve. A subway cannot maintain the 60-80+ mph I presume the Great Valley Flyer traverses much of the line. As for frequency, again, it is mostly a 4 track main. It really should not be a problem. Amtrak and New Jersey Transit manage 10 trains between New York Penn and Trenton between 5pm-6pm on a weekday, on a mostly 4 track main.

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by Nova08

I think the shorter regional rail lines like CHW, CHE, and Fox Chase are much better suited as subway lines (assuming the infrastructure was in place). They are short with stations close together. But lines like Paoli/Thorndale are better utilized as heavy rail. Not to say they do not have stations that are relatively close, but they are better suited to take advantage of higher speeds that subways cannot achieve. A subway cannot maintain the 60-80+ mph I presume the Great Valley Flyer traverses much of the line. As for frequency, again, it is mostly a 4 track main. It really should not be a problem. Amtrak and New Jersey Transit manage 10 trains between New York Penn and Trenton between 5pm-6pm on a weekday, on a mostly 4 track main.

Fox Chase didn't start out life that way. Back when it used to go to Newtown heavy rail made a lot more sense. Ironically, due to popular demand, they brought the Fox Chase-Newtown section back in 1983... as light rail. It did horribly.
The GVF does 90+ mph wherever it can, which is only in a few places iirc. Never drops below 70. It is correct to assume that a subway cannot maintain such speeds. It is also correct to assume that the line can handle more frequency, but your big hurdle there is going to be Amtrak breathing down your neck as you try and draw up a schedule.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Fox Chase didn't start out life that way. Back when it used to go to Newtown heavy rail made a lot more sense. Ironically, due to popular demand, they brought the Fox Chase-Newtown section back in 1983... as light rail. It did horribly.
The GVF does 90+ mph wherever it can, which is only in a few places iirc. Never drops below 70. It is correct to assume that a subway cannot maintain such speeds. It is also correct to assume that the line can handle more frequency, but your big hurdle there is going to be Amtrak breathing down your neck as you try and draw up a schedule.

Yes, there are all kinds of obstacles to increasing service on RR on the Amtrak side and on the RR side related to capacity. RR improvements are extremely expensive and when you consider how small RR ridership is compared to city rail lines it's not a wise investment at all. The reality is most areas served by RR outside of Philly are built out communities with low population growth. Better service in the city via RR would be nice to offer more parity between NE/NW Philly and the areas served by the subway lines but I don't see that happening. One of the big issues is the lack of ADA accessibility on so many RR stations. Truly making an upgrade to the 3 city lines would require a major station investment to make them ADA compliant and thus a real alternative to bus/subway service.

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by cardeza

Yes, there are all kinds of obstacles to increasing service on RR on the Amtrak side and on the RR side related to capacity. RR improvements are extremely expensive and when you consider how small RR ridership is compared to city rail lines it's not a wise investment at all. The reality is most areas served by RR outside of Philly are built out communities with low population growth. Better service in the city via RR would be nice to offer more parity between NE/NW Philly and the areas served by the subway lines but I don't see that happening. One of the big issues is the lack of ADA accessibility on so many RR stations. Truly making an upgrade to the 3 city lines would require a major station investment to make them ADA compliant and thus a real alternative to bus/subway service.

What do you mean by city lines, first of all? Secondly, SEPTA's regional rail reports 37 million individual trips taken in 2016. I would hardly call that small, especially considering that a ticket at the very least costs $5. SEPTA RR ranks at #5 nationally, behind METRA. All of the other commuter rail agencies above METRA are based in NYC.
I don't disagree that SEPTA's ridership would be better, but it's not like this is some dinky system shuttling a few people to work every day. RR serves a vast array of people that is only growing each year.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

What do you mean by city lines, first of all? Secondly, SEPTA's regional rail reports 37 million individual trips taken in 2016. I would hardly call that small, especially considering that a ticket at the very least costs $5. SEPTA RR ranks at #5 nationally, behind METRA. All of the other commuter rail agencies above METRA are based in NYC.
I don't disagree that SEPTA's ridership would be better, but it's not like this is some dinky system shuttling a few people to work every day. RR serves a vast array of people that is only growing each year.

In relation to the rest of SEPTA's service- RR is relatively small. Both subway lines move more people than RR on a daily basis if Im not mistaken- definitely the El. I'm saying that investing hundreds of millions in RR in the hopes of drastic ridership increases doesn't make a lot of sense. Not only is it easier to provide access to growing city neighborhoods- there is actually more potential for population growth in various inner city neighborhoods than in most well developed inner ring suburbs. If things were being done equitably, it would be nice if investments were connected to potential ridership gains.

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by cardeza

In relation to the rest of SEPTA's service- RR is relatively small. Both subway lines move more people than RR on a daily basis if Im not mistaken- definitely the El. I'm saying that investing hundreds of millions in RR in the hopes of drastic ridership increases doesn't make a lot of sense. Not only is it easier to provide access to growing city neighborhoods- there is actually more potential for population growth in various inner city neighborhoods than in most well developed inner ring suburbs. If things were being done equitably, it would be nice if investments were connected to potential ridership gains.

Regional Rail gets about the same daily ridership as the BSL. Regional rail is definitely an important service, but weirdly low for the metro population. The theory goes that if they increase capacity and frequency, along with adding amenities and expanding further beyond Philadelphia, ridership should increase.
The thing is, however, Regional Rail makes about 5x more per day than the BSL and about 3.5x more than the MFL. It makes sense that SEPTA would put their eggs into their more profitable basket in hopes of increasing out of city ridership.
I think that for Philadelphia to truly succeed, a large subway expansion needs to occur. Something on the scale of what Chicago has.

[Inquizative]

"I think that for Philadelphia to truly succeed, a large subway expansion needs to occur. Something on the scale of what Chicago has."

I think this has been understood for many decades but Septa will come up with any other idea that is opposed to expanding the subway system. Septa claims it's too expensive but will blow money on speeding buses (Rapid Bus Lines) and any other idea but the dreaded subway expansion. I really believe it must be something other than the cost. I'm suspecting that there's a covert opposing force that is not permitting this, something that has a penchant for internal combustion engines.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Inquizative

"I think that for Philadelphia to truly succeed, a large subway expansion needs to occur. Something on the scale of what Chicago has."

I think this has been understood for many decades but Septa will come up with any other idea that is opposed to expanding the subway system. Septa claims it's too expensive but will blow money on speeding buses (Rapid Bus Lines) and any other idea but the dreaded subway expansion. I really believe it must be something other than the cost. I'm suspecting that there's a covert opposing force that is not permitting this, something that has a penchant for internal combustion engines.

No need for conspiracy theories, rapid bus lines are many times less expensive than a new subway line. You're comparing apples to something that costs billions of dollars.

Septa is criminally underfunded by the state when compared to other simularly sized transportation systems. A few years ago it got more money through the state that barely allows it to maintain it's current infrastructure.

The truth is, even something super helpful like bus rapid transit on Roosevelt Blvd would require a huge influx of government grants to complete. A subway extension, even one as short as to the Navy Yard would be even more expensive. A more significant subway expansion is pure fantasy.

When Philadelphia first built their subway, there were laborers who worked incredibly cheap and had lives that planners largely viewed as disposable. It was a much cheaper and quicker proposition than what would be possible today. Perhaps the future will hold a lower cost alternative to building a subway expansion, or the federal government will become MUCH more supportive of local public transit, but as things currently stand, a large scale subway expansion is truly impossible and the quicker you come to terms with that, the better.

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by allovertown

No need for conspiracy theories, rapid bus lines are many times less expensive than a new subway line. You're comparing apples to something that costs billions of dollars.

Septa is criminally underfunded by the state when compared to other simularly sized transportation systems. A few years ago it got more money through the state that barely allows it to maintain it's current infrastructure.

The truth is, even something super helpful like bus rapid transit on Roosevelt Blvd would require a huge influx of government grants to complete. A subway extension, even one as short as to the Navy Yard would be even more expensive. A more significant subway expansion is pure fantasy.

When Philadelphia first built their subway, there were laborers who worked incredibly cheap and had lives that planners largely viewed as disposable. It was a much cheaper and quicker proposition than what would be possible today. Perhaps the future will hold a lower cost alternative to building a subway expansion, or the federal government will become MUCH more supportive of local public transit, but as things currently stand, a large scale subway expansion is truly impossible and the quicker you come to terms with that, the better.

If the Boring Company can make it cheap, it could be done. Not to get political, but unions also come into play here. If you used non-union workers you could likely get the price down.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

If the Boring Company can make it cheap, it could be done. Not to get political, but unions also come into play here. If you used non-union workers you could likely get the price down.

Agreed, and if not by Elon Musk than by some other private sector company. That was the real difference between when the subway was built and today - that they were built by the private sector.
I think it's an exaggeration to say that workers' lives were considered disposable by planners. It's just that with construction practices as they were then, there was a certain number that you knew were going to die on the job. Just like in the military: soldiers' lives are not thought of as disposable, it's just that, going in, you know there will be a certain number of casualties in battle. That number goes down when innovation improves the way you do things. And the greatest vehicle for innovation is the private sector.

[eixample]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

If the Boring Company can make it cheap, it could be done. Not to get political, but unions also come into play here. If you used non-union workers you could likely get the price down.

I don't think it is the union wages so much as the work rules requiring excessive staffing compared to European subway building and over-engineered builds. The NYT did a great investigation into why the Second Avenue Subway and other MTA projects cost so much compared to similar projects in Europe. It really isn't primarily about the wages - more the sheer number of make-work jobs that are required.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by eixample

I don't think it is the union wages so much as the work rules requiring excessive staffing compared to European subway building and over-engineered builds. The NYT did a great investigation into why the Second Avenue Subway and other MTA projects cost so much compared to similar projects in Europe. It really isn't primarily about the wages - more the sheer number of make-work jobs that are required.

In fact I was just going to post a link to that eye-opening article from last year (published a year ago yesterday). I believe there have been some followup pieces since.

The Most Expensive Mile of Subway Track on Earth
How excessive staffing, little competition,
generous contracts and archaic rules dramatically
inflate capital costs for transit in New York.