PHILADELPHIA | Schuylkill Yards Future Phases | 1,095 - 375 FT | 70 - 28 FLOORS

[Mr Saturn64]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

^
From what I hear, the folks are in the non-glamorous service sector trying to earn a living making low wages. Not artists or anything like that.

That still doesn't make much sense. If you have a low wage job, why bother commuting from one of the most expensive cities in the world to a much more affordable city?

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

That still doesn't make much sense. If you have a low wage job, why bother commuting from one of the most expensive cities in the world to a much more affordable city?

It doesn't bear much commensense, but these folks know how to make it work. They may have 10 roommates in an undesirable place to living in part of NYC. If they can't get work up there. A $10 bus ticket down to philly to work a full day and then a $10 ticket back still nets them money in the pocket.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by Parkway

I'm not so sure they are comparable, an Amfleet holds 84 people while a standard motor coach holds ~40 and a double deck ~60. A single Northeast Regional carries as many people at 12 Greyhounds or 8 Megabuses.

In spite of that, I agree that a real intercity bus terminal in that area should be a priority. The project should include moving Greyhound and Peter Pan over from their Chinatown digs.

I'm not sure of all the dates and details but a Federal law was passed (back in the Reagan years?) that allowed inter-city buses to take on passengers outside of the normal bus station type environment. And along comes the Chinatown Express, etc. While the idea of a bus terminal makes sense, I say let the bus companies build it. If they think their business is being negatively effected by using a City sidewalk as their terminal then they can chose to explore a different business model which includes a proper bus station. If rock bottom prices is the primary driving force for these companies then I'm doubtful that someone will pay a extra $5 or $10 to get their bus in a covered station.

How about convincing Amtrak to creating a lower priced fare structure? Well, that's a nice idea! We've already got the infrastructure in place.

[Nova08]

Originally Posted by Skintreesnail

also, didn't they just sell the Greyhound lot to a developer? I'd think they'd want to get moving on a relocation plan so there's no service impact.

The land that the terminal sits on was not sold. It was the immediate adjacent land fronting Arch that is currently a parking lot for buses.

[hammersklavier]

W/r/t buses -- I suspect some of youse folks have forgotten that the 30th Street master plan would put a new bus terminal at Schuylkill and Arch, right by the Expressway onramp.

Also don't forget that New York's Megabus pickup is in a similarly trash-strewn wasteland out by the Javits Center (though one much less trash-strewn now that half of Hudson Yards is built out). Boston and DC though both make their Megabuses call at their respective bus terminals, both built literally on top of their rail terminals ... Baltimore, though, sucks. The fifth-largest city in the Northeast's Megabus pickup is ... at the White Marsh Mall, out by the Beltway.

[mcgrath618]

Looks like they've cut some holes for the screen to be fitted.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

It doesn't bear much commensense, but these folks know how to make it work. They may have 10 roommates in an undesirable place to living in part of NYC. If they can't get work up there. A $10 bus ticket down to philly to work a full day and then a $10 ticket back still nets them money in the pocket.

Do you have any links to show that minimum or low wage New Yorkers are commuting to Philly to work? I don't buy it. Minimum wage in NYC is $15 per hour, and it's $7.25 in Philly (except for city workers). What, is there some shortage of low wage jobs in New York City? Why would you spend money and time commuting to work for less unless there are no jobs where you are?

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Do you have any links to show that minimum or low wage New Yorkers are commuting to Philly to work? I don't buy it. Minimum wage in NYC is $15 per hour, and it's $7.25 in Philly (except for city workers). What, is there some shortage of low wage jobs in New York City? Why would you spend money and time commuting to work for less unless there are no jobs where you are?

It makes no sense at all. I wouldn't be shocked if there are people doing it, but I can't imagine this is happening in even remotely significant numbers.

I mean if you can't find low wage work in NYC and need to commute it Philly to obtain it, why not just move to Philly where the cost of living is also cheaper?

Frankly the reverse, where someone living in low cost of living Philly commutes to a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage job in NYC makes far more sense.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Do you have any links to show that minimum or low wage New Yorkers are commuting to Philly to work? I don't buy it. Minimum wage in NYC is $15 per hour, and it's $7.25 in Philly (except for city workers). What, is there some shortage of low wage jobs in New York City? Why would you spend money and time commuting to work for less unless there are no jobs where you are?

I couldn't find anything more recent, but here's one link and I don't think the trend improved because we are talking about low skill to manual labor:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/trends-low-wage-immigrant-workforce

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

I couldn't find anything more recent, but here's one link and I don't think the trend improved because we are talking about low skill to manual labor:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/trends-low-wage-immigrant-workforce

I didn't go through this with a fine tooth comb, but I don't see anything that says low wage workers who live in NYC are instead working in Philly (or anywhere else). It's a big leap to say this is happening because there is some evidence of declines in workforce participation -- as a general matter -- by low skill, low wage native-born workers.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by allovertown

It makes no sense at all. I wouldn't be shocked if there are people doing it, but I can't imagine this is happening in even remotely significant numbers.

I mean if you can't find low wage work in NYC and need to commute it Philly to obtain it, why not just move to Philly where the cost of living is also cheaper?

Frankly the reverse, where someone living in low cost of living Philly commutes to a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage job in NYC makes far more sense.

Yep.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

And, a lot of working class folks (making min. wages or a little better) come down from NYC to work in Philly using these buses on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

From what I hear, the folks are in the non-glamorous service sector trying to earn a living making low wages. Not artists or anything like that.

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

It doesn't bear much commensense, but these folks know how to make it work. They may have 10 roommates in an undesirable place to living in part of NYC. If they can't get work up there. A $10 bus ticket down to philly to work a full day and then a $10 ticket back still nets them money in the pocket.

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

I couldn't find anything more recent, but here's one link and I don't think the trend improved because we are talking about low skill to manual labor:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/trends-low-wage-immigrant-workforce

Did you link the wrong article? Is there actually any evidence to support this illogical assertion or is this actually just something your buddy suggested over a beer (for instance)?

[iheartphilly]

ok you're right, it must be the latter.

[PHLJD13]

Tree Day is getting closer...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BueNuT1jaZV/

[McBane]

Originally Posted by City Wide

How about convincing Amtrak to creating a lower priced fare structure? Well, that's a nice idea! We've already got the infrastructure in place.

Can't. The Northeast Corridor has to subsidize the expense of running empty trains on pretty much every other line. If Amtrak was run like a business, I'm not sure there would be passenger rail anywhere outside the NE Corridor. But no congressperson will sign off on closing even the most seldom-used station or line in their district.

[Parkway]

Originally Posted by McBane

Can't. The Northeast Corridor has to subsidize the expense of running empty trains on pretty much every other line. If Amtrak was run like a business, I'm not sure there would be passenger rail anywhere outside the NE Corridor. But no congressperson will sign off on closing even the most seldom-used station or line in their district.

Amtrak actually wants to. The issue right now is that the Hudson River tunnels are at capacity so there is no room for additional trains. Amtrak has publicly said that once Gateway is complete they want to start an hourly stopping service between NYC and DC with lower fares and more stops at intermediate stations like New Brunswick and Newark (DE). The other issue is lack of equipment. That plan would involve buying a new fleet of EMUs for the service. Currently, Amtrak doesn't have enough cars to consistently add meaningful capacity to the existing trains.

[iheartphilly]

^
It's a terrible business model that Amtrak runs its operations but needs federal funding to keep it afloat. Can someone please explain why that is?

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Parkway

Amtrak actually wants to. The issue right now is that the Hudson River tunnels are at capacity so there is no room for additional trains. Amtrak has publicly said that once Gateway is complete they want to start an hourly stopping service between NYC and DC with lower fares and more stops at intermediate stations like New Brunswick and Newark (DE). The other issue is lack of equipment. That plan would involve buying a new fleet of EMUs for the service. Currently, Amtrak doesn't have enough cars to consistently add meaningful capacity to the existing trains.

Yeah, but that is still the Northeast Corridor where there is demand and it makes business sense. Amtrak trains run all the way down to Florida. When I've had to take one of those for the Philly to DC or New York or DC to New York leg, they are not close to full. And there aren't many runs. I have to think that the trains are largely empty on the legs further South and it doesn't make much sense to staff up and run them.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by McBane

Can't. The Northeast Corridor has to subsidize the expense of running empty trains on pretty much every other line. If Amtrak was run like a business, I'm not sure there would be passenger rail anywhere outside the NE Corridor. But no congressperson will sign off on closing even the most seldom-used station or line in their district.

That's excessive simplification. Amtrak's longest routes, such as the Empire Builder, end up being self-subsidizing, because the land cruisers pay a premium that covers (most of) the day-trippers' fares. (By this logic, adding more land-cruise berths to such trains would allow them to cover their own expenses.)

The real problem is the routes that are too long to be meaningful corridor services but too short/not scenic enough to start attracting land cruise attention. It's the Crescent, Silver Meteor, Cardinal, and similar trains that are Amtrak's biggest money pits, for this reason. The solution to which would obviously be to invest in more corridor service to cross-subsidize what we could term "essential intercity service" ... and there are plenty of unproven/underutilized potential rail corridors in the US.

For example, the Lincoln service sees nearly 600k rides a year, the Hiawatha and Michigan services each some 800k, with the best-developed medium-speed routes e.g. the Empire Corridor, Keystone Service, San Joaquin, and Capitol Corridor, seeing 1.2-1.5 million rides a year, and the Pacific Surfliner, at almost 3 million rides, is an extreme outlier ... keep in mind here these are sub-medium-speed corridors from a global standpoint, too.

But this has always been Amtrak's problem. To make money it essentially has to demonstrate a market for premium service (either via land cruises or HSR) to -- at minimum -- cross-subsidize underperforming essential rail services. But the only way to demonstrate (or create) such a market is by providing popular --- but breakeven -- corridor services adequate to spur further rail investment in the area. Unfortunately -- and in part because it only enjoys limited public support -- every time Amtrak has successfully done so, it gets met with a chorus of "It can't work in our part of the country!" (Actually, it usually can.)

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by Parkway

Amtrak actually wants to. The issue right now is that the Hudson River tunnels are at capacity so there is no room for additional trains. Amtrak has publicly said that once Gateway is complete they want to start an hourly stopping service between NYC and DC with lower fares and more stops at intermediate stations like New Brunswick and Newark (DE). The other issue is lack of equipment. That plan would involve buying a new fleet of EMUs for the service. Currently, Amtrak doesn't have enough cars to consistently add meaningful capacity to the existing trains.

Amtrak owns the tunnel under the Hudson, so in theory they control what goes through it. But I can imagine the shit-storm that would happen if Amtrak announced they were going to start reclaiming slots to run more of their own trains! There's also that problem double track low bridge between the tunnel and Newark that often creates great delays.
I have no confidence that Amtrak can even figure out how to tie it's shoes, never mind running a nationwide system. It doesn't help that Congress doesn't seem able to figure out what they want Amtrak to be, with the understanding that it can't be everything.