Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
PATCO is heavy rail (aka subway, aka metro). It requires more expensive signaling, train control system, third rail, substations, ticketing systems and stations. All of it more expensive than using commuter rail.
The longest subway line in North America (and possibly the world) is the A train in NYC at 30 miles and that line passes through some of the most densely populated neighborhoods anywhere in this country for almost its entire length.
A subway from AC to 16th & Locust would be around 60 miles long and travel through farms, forest, and not-so-dense suburbia for 80% of it's length.
PATCO took over the right-of-way for the ACRL between Westmont and Lindenwold in the late 60s when PATCO was built. The rest of the route was cut back to single track at some point in the late 80s/early 90s because it was falling apart. The only part of the current ROW where double-tracking would be really expensive is where it's shared with PATCO between Ashland Station and just past Haddonfield . . . but even in Haddonfield the ACRL track is so deep in the cut that it could be easily double-decker if money was no object. Still, the only real choke points on the line are Ashland Station itself and the cut through Haddonfield. If the rest of the line is double tracked it puts a lot more time on the schedule for extra trains.
you fail to realize how easy it is to reach west philly from center city. 1 stop from market frankford line.
Never said it was it was very difficult, I've personally been on that bus route countless times so I know what I'm talking about. By the way it's 3 stops from the Market Frankford Line(at 11th street) since the 551 terminates at Greyhound station.
PATCO took over the right-of-way for the ACRL between Westmont and Lindenwold in the late 60s when PATCO was built. The rest of the route was cut back to single track at some point in the late 80s/early 90s because it was falling apart. The only part of the current ROW where double-tracking would be really expensive is where it's shared with PATCO between Ashland Station and just past Haddonfield . . . but even in Haddonfield the ACRL track is so deep in the cut that it could be easily double-decker if money was no object. Still, the only real choke points on the line are Ashland Station itself and the cut through Haddonfield. If the rest of the line is double tracked it puts a lot more time on the schedule for extra trains.
I thought another problematic area is on the PA side as well, where it shares trackage with the NE Corridor, possibly prohibiting significant service expansion. Would an increase of service (i.e. a significant increase where trains run every half hour) be feasible with the shared tracks on that side?
Also, are you suggesting double tracking the line in all areas except the Haddonfield to Ashland part or more areas excluded?
I thought another problematic area is on the PA side as well, where it shares trackage with the NE Corridor, possibly prohibiting significant service expansion. Would an increase of service (i.e. a significant increase where trains run every half hour) be feasible with the shared tracks on that side?
The Amtrak Northeast Corridor has its own tracks, it just rides along side the Septa railroad tracks. So it shouldn't prohibit significant service expansion.
Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 01-02-2013 at 04:11 PM..
I thought another problematic area is on the PA side as well, where it shares trackage with the NE Corridor, possibly prohibiting significant service expansion. Would an increase of service (i.e. a significant increase where trains run every half hour) be feasible with the shared tracks on that side?
You're right. The NEC is really busy between NYC and Philly. My suggestion to fix that is a relatively expensive one but one that I think is ultimately necessary . . . It would require a flying junction that would keep the Trenton Line (R7) on the western set of tracks between Bridesburg and 30th St. and the ACRL and Amtrak on the eastern set for access to the lower level of 30th St.
Quote:
Also, are you suggesting double tracking the line in all areas except the Haddonfield to Ashland part or more areas excluded?
Correct - the cut through Haddonfield runs for about a mile through downtown and out to Crow's Woods. It could pick up double track again from there through Woodcrest and would have to go down to single track again through the station area of Ashland (about 1000 ft.) The rest of the corridor has enough room to be double tracked. It's not that you couldn't double track through Ashland and Haddonfield - I just think that for the cost, it isn't worth it.
At rush hour you might have trains passing each other every 15 minutes and it only takes the current trains about 6 minutes to get through the stretch from Ashland to the end of the cut in Haddonfield so it would be relatively easy to schedule around.
You're right. The NEC is really busy between NYC and Philly. My suggestion to fix that is a relatively expensive one but one that I think is ultimately necessary . . . It would require a flying junction that would keep the Trenton Line (R7) on the western set of tracks between Bridesburg and 30th St. and the ACRL and Amtrak on the eastern set for access to the lower level of 30th St.
Ok. I think then that political will for it could possibly only happen if service to the N. Philly station service was added, like you mentioned before, with Philly benefiting from N. Philly to 30th Street direct service. Then it's not NJT's purpose of that service, but if NJT bought out PATCO and played a expanded role in rail service from So.NJ to PA, it would be somehow be addressed between PA and NJ.
I think in NJ Transit's eyes, it views that Camden County (within Philly MSA) has PATCO and PATCO's role is for commutership within the west side of NJ and Philly. One can commute to Philly through it and deal with SEPTA forward for Temple Penn etc, and that the NJ AC Line was meant for AC to Philly and back for long distance.
The use cases of west Cherry Hill area and Lindenwold having direct 30th Street access and the riders that use it for commute is unintended in their eyes.
Ok. I think then that political will for it could possibly only happen if service to the N. Philly station service was added, like you mentioned before, w/ Philadelphia benefiting from N. Philly to 30th Street service. Then it's not NJT's purpose of that service, but if NJT bought out PATCO and played a expanded role in rail service from So.NJ to PA, it would be somehow be addressed.
You're right, technically, NJT westbound trains would only be allowed to discharge passengers at North Philly. My contention is that the ACRL could be really useful and have triple the current ridership but not as it's currently configured. At present there are only two other rail connections and a pathetic schedule. Even just increasing the trains to once an hour between Atco and 30th St. once the Riverline station opens (and stop at North Philly station) would make a huge difference in ridership.
Quote:
I think in NJ Transit's eyes, it views that Camden County (within Philly MSA) has PATCO and can commute to Philly through it and deal with SEPTA forward for Temple Penn etc, and that the NJ AC Line is just a meant for AC to Philly and back for long distance. West Cherry Hill and Lindenwold which has 30th Street access and the riders that use it for commute is just an tangential occurence in its eyes.
NJT is HQ'ed in Newark so there's not much more you need to say about that. Christie just sees NJTransit as a line item to be crossed out or whittled away to solve budget problems. He ridiculed the Riverline then cut service to it even though the line was at capacity and should've had trains added to it - or at least had fares raised by 25 or 50 cents to keep the trains running.
You're right, technically, NJT westbound trains would only be allowed to discharge passengers at North Philly. My contention is that the ACRL could be really useful and have triple the current ridership but not as it's currently configured. At present there are only two other rail connections and a pathetic schedule. Even just increasing the trains to once an hour between Atco and 30th St. once the Riverline station opens (and stop at North Philly station) would make a huge difference in ridership.
NJT is HQ'ed in Newark so there's not much more you need to say about that. Christie just sees NJTransit as a line item to be crossed out or whittled away to solve budget problems. He ridiculed the Riverline then cut service to it even though the line was at capacity and should've had trains added to it - or at least had fares raised by 25 or 50 cents to keep the trains running.
Ok. How about a solution where DRPA builds and operates this line (and taking over part of NJT). Or SEPTA if it buys out the PATCO line, and consolidates the existing PATCO line and this effort.
Basically a a double tracked line, call it PATCO II, a spur, beginning from Woodcrest in the east and ending at 30th Street Station.
5 Total stops:
1. Woodcrest
2. Cherry Hill west (i.e. racetrack)
3. Pennsauken Riverline connection stop.
4. North Philly
5. 30th Street Station
DRPA also extends the existing PATCO line one stop east to Atco, with Atco as the new east terminus.
NJ Transit:
NJ Transit then operates a shortened AC Line, only from Atco to Atlantic City. Single track still. But more trains just doing this run on the single track, so more service.
Some PATCO II trains leave 30th Station are timed for that NJT AC Line, and are displayed and marketed as Atlantic City. At 30th Street, riders can buy tix still for AC. These PATCO II trains also are express, stopping at only Woodcrest, continuing on the track to Atco. At Atco, a NJ Transit train would be waiting across the track and that PATCO II train wouldn't leave until people boarded that NJT train. Thus it would be the closest to a same ride experience, thus trying to minimize the loss of a same train.
Although this thread is relevant to both sides of the Delaware River, it's a bit more useful for those in on the Jersey side; hence the relocation from the Philadelphia forum.
Ok. How about a solution where DRPA builds and operates this line (and taking over part of NJT). Or SEPTA if it buys out the PATCO line, and consolidates the existing PATCO line and this effort.
Basically a a double tracked line, call it PATCO II, a spur, beginning from Woodcrest in the east and ending at 30th Street Station.
5 Total stops:
1. Woodcrest
2. Cherry Hill west (i.e. racetrack)
3. Pennsauken Riverline connection stop.
4. North Philly
5. 30th Street Station
DRPA also extends the existing PATCO line one stop east to Atco, with Atco as the new east terminus.
If you were going to do that you'd have to terminate the line just over the bridge, maybe you connect with the El right there . . . but subways can't share tracks with regional rail and freight trains and there's too much traffic on the line to take away two sets of tracks for a subway.
But assuming you could go all the way around to 30th St. I would add a lot more stops than those 5. Ridership is going to come from park'n'rides, from stations in densely populated areas and from stations with good transit connections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
