How much does Septa spend per Regional Rail passenger mile

[Art Clemons]

I noticed the following article in the Boston Globe detailing how although
the Metro Boston System had the lowest cost per passenger mile of the big 4
systems but the article offered no figures for Septa. I note that being
cheaper didn't mean that it was more reliable, apparently it was the least
reliable of the systems mentioned.

A cursory check on the Septa website didn't offer a clue, but of course I
only took a cursory look.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/09/mass_rail_cheaper_but_less_reliable

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Art Clemons
I noticed the following article in the Boston Globe detailing how although
the Metro Boston System had the lowest cost per passenger mile of the big 4
systems but the article offered no figures for Septa. I note that being
cheaper didn't mean that it was more reliable, apparently it was the least
reliable of the systems mentioned.

You might want to contact DVARP.

There are actually three significant figures--cost per psgr mile,
revenue per psgr mile, and the difference of those two which is the
subsidy or profit for psgr mile. Another figure is the percentage of
subsidy per psgr revenue.


Revenue is a bit tricky since weekly and monthly passes get free
unlimited riding on other SEPTA divisions. How do they apportion the
revenue?

One problem with cost per psgr mile is that it is a very generalized
number, created by a broad average. For more accurate studies, it
should be defined by branch. It is hard to break down costs by fare
zone but an effort should be made as well. I suspect the incremental
costs of long runs are not covered by the ticket prices for such runs
except maybe Trenton NJ and the airport which has a premium fare.

As to SEPTA's cost, on the one hand it pays its crews the lowest wage
rates which saves money. On the other hand, the SEPTA system, as laid
out, is very inefficient due to frequent stations close together.
SEPTA runs a lot of short trains compared to other agencies which is
inefficient. SEPTA's ancient wooden garden stations are also high
maintenance.


As to revenues, I think SEPTA railroad fares could be raised _IF_
service quality was sigificantly improved. That is, more, faster, and
more reliable trains. Better stations with heated waiting rooms and
restrooms. Restrooms on trains of long runs. More comfortable
seats. Adequate parking at all stations. Adequate security on board,
at stations, and downtown.

[Art Clemons]

As to revenues, I think SEPTA railroad fares could be raised IF
service quality was sigificantly improved.  That is, more, faster, and
more reliable trains.  Better stations with heated waiting rooms and
restrooms.  Restrooms on trains of long runs.  More comfortable
seats.  Adequate parking at all stations.  Adequate security on board,
at stations, and downtown.

More and faster Septa service isn't going to happen as long as Septa runs
over Amtrak territory. Heated waiting rooms would be condemned as
attracting the homeless in winter too. It would be nice to see restrooms
on trains, but even more useful to have them at most stations, but once
again, fear of the homeless make it unlikely.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Art Clemons
More and faster Septa service isn't going to happen as long as Septa runs
over Amtrak territory.

Actually, the problems with slow trains are on SEPTA owned tracks.
DVARP has documented troubles, such as excessive dwell times downtown.

Post by Art Clemons
Heated waiting rooms would be condemned as
attracting the homeless in winter too. It would be nice to see restrooms
on trains, but even more useful to have them at most stations, but once
again, fear of the homeless make it unlikely.

Homeless isn't an issue at many suburban locations. For example, many
suburban post office lobbies are open 24/7 so boxholders can access
their boxes and people use the vending machines. Station rooms could
be opened for trains and closed when service ends. Also, lobbies
could be restricted to ticketed RR passengers only which means they'd
have to leave by the next train.

[Art Clemons]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Actually, the problems with slow trains are on SEPTA owned tracks.
DVARP has documented troubles, such as excessive dwell times downtown.

Septa gets only so many slots on Amtrak owned tracks, and they have to not
interfere with the higher priority Amtrak traffic. Septa thus cannot
easily increase the number of runs it makes. It would be difficult for
example for Septa to increase service to every half hour on its Trenton
line.

I also note that a good deal of the dwell time is the changing of crews at
Suburban, they even change run numbers. A train that is ahead of schedule
still has to remain until its scheduled time to leave, I'm sure you can
figure out why.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Art Clemons
Heated waiting rooms would be condemned as
attracting the homeless in winter too.  It would be nice to see restrooms
on trains, but even more useful to have them at most stations, but once
again, fear of the homeless make it unlikely.

Homeless isn't an issue at many suburban locations.  For example, many
suburban post office lobbies are open 24/7 so boxholders can access
their boxes and people use the vending machines.  Station rooms could
be opened for trains and closed when service ends.  Also, lobbies
could be restricted to ticketed RR passengers only which means they'd
have to leave by the next train.

I guess you haven't noticed for example the Norristown transit center. I
still remember seeing folks I'ld formerly seen in let's say Upper Darby
suddenly living their lives in Center City.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Art Clemons
Septa gets only so many slots on Amtrak owned tracks, and they have to not
interfere with the higher priority Amtrak traffic. Septa thus cannot
easily increase the number of runs it makes. It would be difficult for
example for Septa to increase service to every half hour on its Trenton
line.

SEPTA does not use up very many slots on Amtrak, particularly on the
Paoli line. NJ Transit can have three or four trains an hour vs.
SEPTA only one, so SEPTA could easily schedule much more service on
the Trenton and Wilmington lines if demand required it. There is not
that much demand.

At one there was half hour service on BOTH Chestnut Hill lines. SEPTA
found that to be wasteful and cut it back. Of course, that reduced
the convenience to riders. Many in SEPTA would like to kill off one
of the CH H lines to save money.

Post by Art Clemons
I also note that a good deal of the dwell time is the changing of crews at
Suburban, they even change run numbers. A train that is ahead of schedule
still has to remain until its scheduled time to leave, I'm sure you can
figure out why.

DVARP says they can tighten that up and I agree. The new crew should
be ready and waiting to take over. Of course why change crews at
all? This isn't a division point out in the middle of Kansas.

Post by Art Clemons
I guess you haven't noticed for example the Norristown transit center. I
still remember seeing folks I'ld formerly seen in let's say Upper Darby
suddenly living their lives in Center City.

Not all stations would be appropriate to have open, Norristown is a
city, not a suburb. Of course years ago the P&W waiting room had no
trouble in it. But again, requiring waiting passengers to be ticketed
is an effective and successful method to enforce proper usage. Also,
not allowing people to sleep in the facility is an effective rule used
by other systems.

At many stations, anyone who does not board a train must is required
to leave the station grounds after the train has departed.

[Art Clemons]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
SEPTA does not use up very many slots on Amtrak, particularly on the
Paoli line.  NJ Transit can have three or four trains an hour vs.
SEPTA only one, so SEPTA could easily schedule much more service on
the Trenton and Wilmington lines if demand required it.  There is not
that much demand.

I happen to know several engineers who operate on the NEC from Septa and
Amtrak, they claim that the slots are full and in fact, Amtrak needs more
trackage to handle all of the traffic when for example weather conditions
change or trains are backing up for one reason or another. Your claim
might be true if there were never delays, late trains and the like, but
accomodating delays and late trains fills up slots that might exist in a
perfect world.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
At one there was half hour service on BOTH Chestnut Hill lines.  SEPTA
found that to be wasteful and cut it back.  Of course, that reduced
the convenience to riders.  Many in SEPTA would like to kill off one
of the CH H lines to save money.

The two lines do parallel each other and frankly the Chestnut Hill East line
likely could be easily converted to light rail (that doesn't have to cross
Amtrak territory and thus run into FRA rules on weight, construction and
length) if the line instead went to Fox Chase, and the R8 went to Trenton.
Yes I know it would require some switching at for example Suburban or 30th
Street, but so what, it's all Septa territory.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Art Clemons
I happen to know several engineers who operate on the NEC from Septa and
Amtrak, they claim that the slots are full ...

Sorry, but they're wrong. Simply look at an NJT NEC schedule and see
how many NJT trains there are with no SEPTA connection. Don't forget
other NJT trains join the NEC at Rahway and the Meadowlands. That's a
lot of slots open on the SEPTA side.

Please have them explain how NJT is able to operate three times as
many trains along the NEC as SEPTA does, plus squeeze everything into
a two track tunnel. 30th St is not a bottleneck like Penn Station is.

South of Philadelphia there is even more room since the Hbg trains
aren't on it.

Post by Art Clemons
The two lines do parallel each other and frankly the Chestnut Hill East line
likely could be easily converted to light rail (that doesn't have to cross
Amtrak territory and thus run into FRA rules on weight, construction and
length) if the line instead went to Fox Chase, and the R8 went to Trenton.
Yes I know it would require some switching at for example Suburban or 30th
Street, but so what, it's all Septa territory.

To be light rail the trains would have to be seperated from ALL other
SEPTA commuter trains as well. The issue is not Amtrak, but rather
railroad vs. light rail. That meant once the lines joined at Wayne
Jct and Newtown Jct they'd have to be kept isolated for their entire
run through center city which is very impractical.

In addition, the trains would not run "through", but would have to
back out which is inefficient and would require layup turnback tracks.

Also, I don't know if any freight is still handled along any of those
lines (it is in some places in SEPTA territory to online shippers).
If so, special arrangements must be made for that as well to share
tracks with trolleys.


Lastly, Chestnut Hill riders _like_ being on a real train. To them,
light rail would be a step downward.

[Art Clemons]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
To be light rail the trains would have to be seperated from ALL other
SEPTA commuter trains as well.  The issue  is not Amtrak, but rather
railroad vs. light rail.  That meant once the lines joined at Wayne
Jct and Newtown Jct they'd have to be kept isolated for their entire
run through center city which is very impractical.

Actually not true, light rail can run over territory that rail runs over,
consider the sharing of the Trenton line with freight as an example. It's
not only possible but practical. The key factor is keeping light rail out
of the same blocks as rail. Incidentally you can have light rail that runs
on the same nominal 11KV that regular rail runs on now, meaning no new
infrastructure costs except the light rail equipment purchase.
****************************************************************

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Lastly, Chestnut Hill riders like being on a real train.  To them,
light rail would be a step downward.

I suspect from personal experience that more frequent service would soon
relieve them of any envy or feeling of stepping downward. Incidentally if
it weren't for the slight crossing over into Amtrak that the R1 presently
does, I'ld suggest doing that as light rail too.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Art Clemons

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
To be light rail the trains would have to be seperated from ALL other
SEPTA commuter trains as well. The issue is not Amtrak, but rather
railroad vs. light rail. That meant once the lines joined at Wayne
Jct and Newtown Jct they'd have to be kept isolated for their entire
run through center city which is very impractical.

Actually not true, light rail can run over territory that rail runs over,
consider the sharing of the Trenton line with freight as an example. It's
not only possible but practical.

That's not true. If you're thinking of the River Line, the light rail
cars and freight cars are strictly segregated and forbidden to be on
the same tracks at the same time. Freight service runs overnight;
daytime freights have their own segregated tracks. It is much more
than "not sharing a block". Physical protection is required.


In the SEPTA system, light rail cars could not (nor should not) be
mixed with regular rail cars. The tracks would have to be segregated
and that would be very inefficient.

Post by Art Clemons

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Lastly, Chestnut Hill riders like being on a real train. To them,
light rail would be a step downward.

I suspect from personal experience that more frequent service would soon
relieve them of any envy or feeling of stepping downward. Incidentally if
it weren't for the slight crossing over into Amtrak that the R1 presently
does, I'ld suggest doing that as light rail too.

If the SEPTA commuter rail network was being built today new, the
whole thing would be built as interurban-grade light rail, such as the
River Line. Much more frequent service could be economically offered,
with the long distance routes (ie Trenton, Downingtown, Doylestown)
providing express service with intermediate locals in between; that
way everyone gets a comfortable seat and trip plus transfer options.

But the system exists as it does now and the cost of building a
separate track network to isolate it from freight and Amtrak would be
astronomical. Converting bits and pieces to light rail would be very
inefficient and impractical. As mentioned, while the Reading-side
routes do not use Amtrak, they do intermix with freight. There was a
collision a few years ago and the sturdiness of the commuter car
prevented injuries, had that been a light rail car it would've been
bad.