Swampoodle Connection

Web of lines

The Swampoodle Connection was originally proposed in the early 1980s to link the Chestnut Hill West Line (R8) into the SEPTA Main Line--originally the Reading's 9th St. Branch--via the Manayunk/Norristown Line (R6) where the two lines closely parallel each other just south of Allegheny Ave. between the SEPTA Main/R6 line/Northeast Corridor junction complex and the lightly-used Allegheny R6 station. (A disused CHW station sits nearby; you can see its ruins as you pass by.)

CHW was originally owned and maintained by the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) and as such accessed Center City via the PRR's right-of-way, nowadays the Northeast Corridor, via Zoo Interlocking and 30th St. into Broad St. Station, nowadays Suburban Station. This routing is highly circuitous and adds a good ten minutes to the line's schedule. It also involves a flat junction across the NEC, such that its outbound trains foul the entire Corridor; this has the side effect of inhibiting its schedule frequency. Clearly, a reconsideration of the Swampoodle Connection is needed in order to optimize existing services.

Phase 1. The dark blue represents the Reading lines, light blue the PRR. Orange is the first junction.

Doing this is relatively simple: a flat junction between the two lines where they are more-or-less level with each other just south of Allegheny station. This moves the primary flat junction to the easier-to-dispatch SEPTA Main, as seen above. But this is not the only use of a Swampoodle connection; rather, it is the beginning of a complex.

Phase 2. The yellow line represents the extensions.

The next step would be inaugurated by the, well, inauguration of diesel commuter rail from Norristown to Pottstown (or even Reading). While the traditional Schuylkill Valley Metro project is deader than the dinosaurs, there is no reason a basic diesel push-pull service would not do well. After all, that was how the Reading (and later SEPTA) ran the line for many years! Such a quick-and-dirty restart would necessarily terminate in 30th St. Station's lower level, but utilize the former Reading main line, and hence would necessitate a second connection at Swampoodle, this time going the other way--from the R6 to the NEC. Phase 2 accomplishes this by using the former interchange track as well as the original R8 flyover; the Phase 1 junction becomes a full crossover.

The problem with this is, of course, that it would (again) create a fouling situation on the NEC, on top of being (again) an extremely circuitous entré into Center City from the north. On top of this, restarting commuter rail along the Reading main is an excellent skeletal framework for reconsidering the (underutilized) Stoney Creek Branch as a route into the city from the North Penn area, as well as the (currently a trail) former Perkiomen Branch, which would offer improved access to towns up the Perkiomen Creek Valley, most notably Collegeville-Trappe, Graterford, Schwenksville, and the Pennsburg-Green Lane-Red Hill area. Passenger service along the Reading main also offers the promise of electrification--to Phoenixville, in particular, shows promise--and possibly eventually Pottstown.

Phase 3: the red line superimposed on the previous works.

While the majority of the issues, longer-term, would be solved by reactivating the Pencoyd Viaduct (more on that later) and converting the former PRR Schuylkill Branch, the remnant of which is the Cynwyd Line (R6), into a cutoff linking the Reading and PRR main lines and offering a much more direct entry into Center City from the northwest, locals to Norristown (Phoenixville?) and CHW will still be wanting to use Swampoodle. Phase 3 thus seeks to eliminate the flat junction between the SEPTA main and the Norristown Line, utilizing the former CHW alignment and the infrastructure of the previous two phases' interlocking. Phase 3, the most expensive addition to the Swampoodle complex, would involve cutting a shallow trench tunnel from the CHW's North Philadelphia station under the Trenton Line's and through a Pathmark parking lot into the SEPTA main line. This would convert the basic interlocking achieved in Phase 1 into a fully high-speed junction.

If management wishes, a shallow tunnel can also be cut under the NEC in order to grade-separate the northbound junction at this phase (especially if Swampoodle can be achieved before Pencoyd), in order to offer full operational flexibility--even though the Norristown Line-to-NEC side of Swampoodle would have significantly less usage than the SEPTA-Main-to-Norristown-and-CHW-Lines side. Once Pencoyd is up and running, the Norristown-to-NEC side will be more a secondary path to be used mainly if the primary Pencoyd path has to be closed for any reason.

Swampoodle, like Pencoyd, is a potential interlocking with regionally-important implications. This post is intended to be a laying-out of a program to develop it to its full potential.

How Much, Really, Can You Squeeze In?

This post is inspired by a quote from a Mayor's Office of Transportation and Utilities (MOTU) spokesperson in an interview from Plan Philly having to do with the 10th Street Chinatown bike lane: that the technical maximum per traffic lane is 800 vehicles/hour.

Now, I'll agree that there's a technical maximum. I am not so sure that it is so blasély quantifiable. Think about it: the movement of a car has two geometrical elements that must pass any point or line before the next can take its place in safe progression--the carbody itself, as well as the reaction space in front of the car. This unoccupied reaction space grows proportionally to the speed of travel--it decreases the total number of vehicles which can safely progress through a point the faster these vehicles are going.

Another way of saying this is that per-lane traffic progression (throughput) is a function of the reaction space of the car, itself a function of the speed of the car. As mean speed goes up, throughput (how many cars can actually progress through a given point) goes down, and vice versa, until stop is achieved and the system is clogged.

Ironically enough, peak throughput occurs when the system is so congested as to inhibit unimpeded movement, but no so congested as to actually be clogged--that is to say, a rush hour traffic jam. Peak throughput occurs in speeds that utterly fail to capitalize on the car's major advantages (i.e. its speed premium) and so autocentric traffic systems are designed in such a way as to avoid peak throughput. This, in its turn, incurs further costs (transportation mode restriction, increased spatial consumption = sprawl, etc.).

Let us assume mean speed on the stretch of 10th St. in question is 10 mph. It's in Chinatown, which lots of stoplights, jaywalkers, and cars coming from the north or off the Vine Street Expwy., so this is a reasonable assumption. Given the throughput model I've just outlined here, how many cars can pass per hour in a single driving lane?

Since 1 mile = 5280 ft., 10 miles = 52,800 ft. Therefore a vehicle traveling 10 mph traverses 52,800 feet in an hour. The PA Driver's Manual recommends keeping 6 seconds' stopping distance, and a rule of thumb is that the stopping distance is roughly 1 carlength per 10 mph.

6 seconds' stopping distance is 52,800/60 = 800 feet/min, 800/60 = 13.3 ft/sec, 13.3*6 = 80 ft. stopping distance. Obviously not a tenable figure for any reasonable calculation*.

So let us use the rule of thumb then. Picture a row of cars lined up, bumper-to-bumper, exactly a mile long. Since the rule of thumb is that a car's stopping distance is itself every 10 mph, we can divide to obtain the number we're looking for.

For this purpose, let us say the average car is 18 ft. SUVs and light trucks are 20 ft. (or longer), while coupes are around 15 ft. This means there are 294 cars to the mile. Divide by half and we see that 147 cars can traverse 1 mile at 10 mph; multiply this by 10 and the number is 1,470 cars/hr (quite a bit more than 800 cars/hr)**.

Having tried these two calculations, one significantly lower than the MOTU number, and the other significantly higher--but the MOTU number floating serenely almost at the exact median between the two--we're forced to wonder: how did they come up with this number in the first place?
___________
* But if you must know, this works out to an average geometric car being 98 feet long! It would take 7.37 seconds for this body to traverse that distance at that speed, which works out to 488.47 of those things in an hour--which is significantly lower than the MOTU number^.
^ Let's take this model further. 5280 ft/mile =  316,800 ft traversed at 60 mph. 316,800/3600 = 88 feet traversed per second. 88(6) = 528 ft reaction space + 18 ft (car) = 546 ft. geometrical object. 316,800/546 = 580.22 vehicles/hr at 60 mph^^^.
** According to this model, a car traveling at 20 mph is 3 vehicle units, at 30, 4, at 40, 5, and so on^^. So you can amortize to the hour to figure out traversal per point in an hour^^^.
^^ The model can be described as x = (C/y)z, where x is maximal cars/lane/mile in unimpeded conditions, C is carlengths per mile (a unit of length), y is geometric carlengths needed for free-flowing conditions per x10 mph, and z is mph.
^^^ But this contradicts the hypothesis I described earlier in the post. Throughput at 60 mph would be (297/7)60 = 2520 cars/lane/hr, which is noticeably higher than 10 mph throughput of 1470 cars/lane/hour. What do we make of this? A solution may be that the numbers we're using all describe free-flowing (unimpeded) conditions, whereas congestion is congested (impeded) conditions.

Bureaucracy and Subsidy

Last fall, Steven Smith noted that European mass transit is subsidized the same amount as its American counterpart. Yet Europe has extensive mass transit offerings just about everywhere, to the point where it is difficult to find anyplace that has mediocre access relative to density or none at all, whereas in the U.S. the picture is the obverse. What gives?

Most complaints fall against ill-structured subsidization packages: roads in the U.S. have substantially higher subsidies relative to their European counterparts; driving standards here are rather more lax; exclusionary land use promotes driver culture at the expense of transit culture; etc. Part of this is of course true. Road standards are excessive and promote speeding which in turn promotes lax enforcement; land use is not planned in a way to support transit nodes; and road subsidies are hidden while transit subsidies are often paraded front and center. DOTs want to do nothing but build roads, and politicians insist on micromanaging transit while at the same time ignoring the multitude of excessive standards (and entailed ballooned costs) in the road planning arena. It's as if they have a monocle on one eye and a log in the other.

But that isn't the key problem. Smith, in his article, points out that the Bay Area receives an equivalent amount of transit funding for an equivalent population as Switzerland--but Switzerland has incontestably excellent transit while the Bay Area's, while good by U.S. standards, is, ahem, lacking. As Elizabeth Alexis notes, in Smith's quote, "The problem is more of how we spend money, not the amount of money."

How is this money spent? In the Bay Area, it is allocated to a number of transit agencies, each with its own agenda:

BART
Caltrain
Muni
Amtrak California (Capitol Corridor)
ACE
VTA
AC Transit
Golden Gate Transit
etc.

Even when you take out the bus operators, that still leaves

BART
Caltrain
Muni
Amtrak California
ACE, and the
VTA.

By contrast, the vast majority of passenger rail in Switzerland is handled by the

SBB:

this includes all national-level passenger rail, the R-Bahn networks, and the S-Bahns. Some Swiss cities also have metros (Lausanne is the smallest) which are owned and handled by independent organizations. The Swiss

SBB

handles thus all the functions of

BART
Caltrain
Amtrak California, and
ACE.

And therein lies the problem. The Bay Area suffers from a bad case of bureaucratic redundancy, which means that multiple overlapping bureaucracies are handling things where only a single bureaucracy is really needed. So the basic problem is that, where in Switzerland,

1 bureaucrat

is needed to perform any necessary office job, in the Bay Area,

4 bureaucrats

are.

And you wonder where all the money goes!

That's not the worst of it, though. American transit agencies are incredibly territorial, and jealously guard their turf to the point of undermining the common need for improved transit access. How else can you defend Millbrae, which seems to have been spitefully designed to inhibit Bay Area high-speed travel via the Caltrain ROW as expensively as possible? Or spending money to reduce interlocking redundancy, which in its turn undercuts on-time performance?

Elizabeth Alexis is dead right. And in the U.S., we spend money on bloated redundant bureaucracy, on entrenching petty squabbles in concrete, and at the end of the day we find we have no money to actually run transit, let alone well.

Organization before electronics before concrete, the Germans say. But here we take concrete uber alles, and even use concrete to entrench organizational inefficiencies.

Former Chamounix Drive crossing of the run at the bottom of Chamounix Valley.

Tucked away deep inside Fairmount Park, on the west bank of the Schuylkill River is Chamounix Mansion. near its highest point, Prospect Mount, is Chamounix Mansion. Reachable only by the two-mile-long arrow-straight Chamounix Drive from Belmont Avenue, it is far from the Plateau or the three great dells that once formed the centerpiece of the West Park–Belmont and Lansdowne and Sweetbriar. Nowadays the mansion is a youth hostel and there’s a riding academy nearby. But its location, on a spur far from the park’s main centers, renders it remote for those who do not have anything to do there. It is all but forgotten to the average park goer. But, truth be told, this  fourth dell was once one of the park’s major attractions–and even today, it holds in equal doses wonder and mystery and sweet calm.

While land deeds on this site go all the way back to Pennsylvania’s founding ... Read more at Hidden City Philadelphia.

The More Things Change....

Source: 1909 G.W. Bromley atlas, courtesy Phila Geo History

Glance at any map of West Philadelphia and there it is, almost a bull’s eye: the massive, ungridded expanse bounded by 42nd and 49th Streets, Market Street and Haverford Avenue. All this used to be the grounds of the Pennsylvania Hospital for the Insane (later the Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital) and indeed the western section of the site is still used for its original purpose, a “behavioral health services center” inside the old Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital. Over the course of half a century it was subdivided–first into the monumental, state capitol-like Provident Mutual headquarters and then later into Drexel University’s Vidas Athletic Complex, the West Park Towers, some affordable housing flanking 46th, and most recently, a few pad commercial sites.

As the property was subdivided, each new use was inserted as if in a vacuum. No physical connections were made ... Read more at Hidden City Philadelphia.

What Makes a Good Third Place?

I found this article about stations as third places, and I'd like to offer my comment on it:

The article in question has a bit of confusion: first it starts talking about London Marlyebone (a major terminal) and comparing and contrasting it with like depots in the U.S. (Chicago Ogilvie, D.C. Union...) but then the reference to Kalamazoo--in no way a major urban terminal--throws one off.

The problem with this, I think, is that the level of activity needed to make a good third place in smaller cities and towns, like Kalamazoo, is much less than what is needed in major cities. So the discussion of why Seattle's King Street or Indianapolis Union underwhelms fits well in a context dominated by stations like Marlyebone, Grand Central, Southern Cross, Gare du Nord, etc., but not Kalamazoo.

A second problem is that transportation options alone do not make a third place. Greyhound stations usually have lots of transportation options, for example, but are equally as universally dank, dark, dreary, and lots of other words that begin with D.

Let me offer up an example of a smaller station that is a great third place. Lansdale, PA, is a borough in the Philadelphia suburbs, a smallish town to the north of the city. It is near the edge of the city's extensive-by-American-standards commuter rail network. And it is a good third place. Why?

It has a small café/coffeeshop inside (a good one too). This encourages commuters to stop and get a cuppa, and breakfast and even lunch. It has free Wi-Fi, which should not go unnoticed when we note that Starbucks and Barnes & Noble are frequently cited as good third places. The trains there run half-hourly (at least) from before dawn to midnight, and there are two buses that stop there too. It is along the borough's Main Street, guaranteeing a wealth of other third places nearby (such as the library). And it is in an architecturally excellent and reasonably well-maintained structure--in other words, a building projecting warmth and hominess--something else we need to keep in mind and often don't. It's not perfect, of course--the waiting area and café within close up before dinner hour--but as far as stations as third places go, it's an excellent example of what can be achieved even in a borough of 10,000.

And on the flipside, architectural quality really can make a difference. Market East is one of Philadelphia's busiest stations, and sits right off the concourse of an urban mall, but fails to be a good third place in no small part because of how dreary the waiting area feels. By contrast, the platform area is extremely open and airy, and hence many people favor waiting there instead, which sucks the energy out of the main waiting room(s). 

Does anybody know of any other smaller stations like Lansdale's--stations that function as much as a place to go to as they do a way to get from there to here? I am sure it's not alone: even in the Philadelphia area, I can think of a couple of other stations that come close...

Edit: A prompt reply:

Thanks Stephen. Kalamazoo was meant to depict that you do not have to be a
big city station to be a successful third place. Your description of
Lansdale sounds like another fine example. For mid-sized city status, four
AMTRAK passenger trains a day is a lot here in the U.S., though it would be
even better to have commuter rail to Chicago from there like SE Wisconsin
and NW Indiana do. I think the differing time zones between MI and IL makes
that difficult.

I have been in Market East and agree with your assessment - that is
partially why I did not include it. In addition, not all small city
stations in the UK are great third places - many are just way points, but
the station in Inverness, Scotland is a successful exception. Perhaps it
helps being a tourist town. 

...

Another Oil Price Shock Is Brewing

Photo: Philadelphia Inquirer

Fun news: another oil price shock is coming.

How can I tell? Simple. The price at the pump is already back above $4/gal. There was a debate last December (on The Oil Drum) about 2012 barrel price projections. But, as Voltaire noted, Les hommes discutent, la nature agit--we can quibble about our projections, but the ultimate arbiter is what actually comes up out of the ground and who gets it.

This is something the U.S. is losing. Oil production began to plateau in 2002; in 2005 China and India became major buyers Hoovering up all the world's excess crude. In 2005 the U.S. ceased to be the world's crude sink.

2005 was peak oil for America. It was the peak of availability, note, not of absolute production. That has not yet indisputably happened. But since 2005 India and (especially) China have been the buyers of choice, those who get first crack at oil, while the developed world has had to make due with decreasing local supplies. This has, unsurprisingly, led to slow but sure increases in U.S. gas prices.

In 2006-7 wanton speculation in the oil futures market (an early reaction to a local collapse of the housing market that actually began in 2006) led to a steep rise in the price of gas, leading to the first price shock, which in turn catalyzed the more general collapse, particularly in the housing market, we saw through 2007-8. With that collapse, the price of gas dropped to unsustainable lows, and has since been increasing in lockstep with the economy's inchworm improvements.

But the final straw that brought about this collapse was the fact that the price of gas became too high to bear. $4/gal seems to be the critical threshold, beyond which non-automotive transportation options, whatever their limitations, become mighty appealing. And we find ourselves back at this threshold early this year, before the spring or summer traveling seasons have even begun.

A key issue is the long-term ramifications of the Arab Spring and the Iranian oil sanctions, both of which have essentially taken Mideast oil supplies off the map. Continuing political tensions there will continue to effect oil prices.

But this is key--unlike with the last price shock, there is no clear evidence that speculation was driving an unsustainable bubble. In fact, it seems the opposite is true. The price of oil is up because (a) production is as flat as it has been for a decade (this is in accordance with realizations of Hubbert peak theory) and (b) China and India have fast become "thirsty" countries. In fact, I posit the supply of oil in China and India will be inversely proportional with the supply in the developed world (the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia). In the long run, these two demand blocs will just about evenly split the balance of the world's oil demand, but this is not going to happen without severe economic adjustments in the West.

But--$4/gal is the critical mass beyond which Americans will begin en masse to seek alternative transportation options; we can expect $4.50 or even $5/gal gas over the summer. And, to repeat: this will be the second oil price shock.

Particularly late last year, when the oil price inexplicably dropped (Libyan reserves coming back online?) oblivious or in-denial Americans began to revert to their gas-guzzling ways. This came while at the same time the younger generation, when they could afford it, showed a clear preference for urban living.

The economic reaction to this shock is very much up in the air. America is stronger right now; Europe is knee-deep in the Euro crisis (another debt crisis). But the dominant economic structure right now is deleveraging--each debt crisis is catalyzing another one, and will continue to, until debt burdens are enormously shrunk, if not outright eliminated.

It is very likely the U.S. will have a reaction to this shock the same way the Europeans had the first one--no need to panic, this is just like 2007, only this time we don't need to choose between our house and our car (we made that choice five years ago). To them, though, this could be the one missing brick that brings down the tottering structure that is the Eurozone--or, obversely--be the foundation block that cements a unified Europe...

Tepid Urbanism At New Norris Apartments

*Author's note: I originally used the phrases "battery cages of poverty" to describe towers-in-a-park and "barracks and battery cages" to describe public housing's urban renewal-era efforts, producing towers-in-parks and garden apartments, when writing this post.

Wrapping up major construction, and soon to be rented, are the LEED certified Norris Apartments, a low-slung townhouse-and-apartment public housing complex replacing a dreary tower-in-a-park that loomed over the northeast corner of Temple University for the longest time. (See Naked Philly’s report HERE and Plan Philly’s HERE.)

On the outside, this ambitious project, designed by Blackney Hayes, is akin to other ... Continue reading at Hidden City Philadelphia.

A House Divided

In the news today, SEPTA's head, Joe Casey, is blasting the House Transportation bill. The problems with this bill are well known.

Now, the bill is in one sense obvious political posturing. It is impassable in every sense of the word--no Democrat in their right mind would possible vote in favor of it. It is a transportation bill as the ultra-regressive Tea Partiers would see it. It completely ignores major changes in transportation demands occurring among younger Americans. It would benefit one constituency and one constituency only--the Tea Party's core constituency--to the exclusion of all others.

But, in another sense, it is denial. Active denial. A willing ignorance, a nostalgia that we can return to the 1950s.

The reality? We can't. The United States passed peak oil availability in 2005. Vehicle miles traveled, unsurprisingly, peaked at the same time. We just lived through one oil price shock--in 2007-8--and are ramping up to another one. This is something the new generation gets, in a very visceral sense, and whenever possible they're choosing to live where there's no need for a car to get through the day.

This is our voice, a voice missing from the Tea Party and this boondoggle bill: we want, and demand--to the point that many cities now have powerful lobbies for them--bike lanes. We prefer taking mass transit. We usually have more than one thing going on at a time, job-wise, and time is precious. Too precious to be spent driving an hour or more every day.

And those of us who have decided to learn about how our transportation system works, who want to work for it, also know that our roads far, far overbuilt relative to how much we can spend maintaining it, while everything else is utterly opposite.

We know that the only way to reduce driving is to make driving less necessary and less convenient. And so the House transportation bill is utterly antithetical to our needs.

New York & Greenwood Lake

I am starting a rail asset stock for North Jersey, and in  the course of my research discovered the current NJ Transit network is only about 2/3 of the area's potential commuter rail network.

An excellent example of this is the New York & Greenwood Lake line, built as in independent railroad linking New York City with a remnant glacial tarn in the Catskills. Eventually acquired by the Erie Railroad, it was an active commuter line until 1982, and part of it has been repurposed into the Montclair-Boonton Line. But part of the ROW is lost--at the bottom of a reservoir, in fact.

This is an excellent example of viable disused passenger rail in North Jersey.

South Jersey Regional Rail

This is Part III of a very long-term commuter rail plan. Part I dealt with Pennsylvania rail assets, with Part Ia as an addendum; Part II dealt with South Jersey rail assets.

Proposed South Jersey rail network

Despite having plenty of infrastructure in place, South Jersey currently has no substantive rail network. Only three lines serve this area, and they, for the most part, avoid the core neighborhoods.

It should say something that, while the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines once had a large, complete South Jersey passenger rail network, only one--the former Main Line from Camden to Atlantic City--is still in use, and even then, split between heavy rail PATCO and commuter rail Atlantic City Line. Disuse of this infrastructure represents a waste--but a waste no different than the waste engendered by the disuse of viable commuter rail infrastructure in many other American cities (e.g. Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland, etc.) Elsewhere, particularly in the Mountain West, work is being done to rectify this; however, there are still many places where even the idea of a passenger train is anathema.

Let us turn back, though, to a prospective South Jersey network. After surveying the rail assets, we can determine that there are two distinct networks that dominate South Jersey:

1. A commuter network largely running down the Millville Branch spine, and
2. An intercity network linking to the Shore destinations.

Both networks historically converged on Camden's massive Federal Street terminal, which had ferry connections to the Philadelphia waterfront. A station also existed at Broadway, which was the terminus of the Delaware River bridge subway. From there the routes fanned out: to Trenton, to Amboy, to Toms River, two to Atlantic City (both converged at Winslow Jct.), to Ocean City and Wildwood and Cape May, to Grenloch, to Vineland and Millville, to Bridgeton, to Salem, and to Pennsgrove. However, while it is reasonable to converge the commuter lines on Camden, it is preferable to converge the intercity network on 30th St. Station.

Six lines are viable commuter lines, four intercity, and two possible Atlantic City commuter lines. Two more lines are viable North Jersey lines which meet this network--for the time being, we'll assume these lines terminate at Newark, but we'll also want to look at bringing them to Hoboken, or better yet (if we as a nation finally decide to get our rear in gear and aggressively finance urban rail improvements) directly into Manhattan, perhaps via Staten Island. But that's for later.

The four intercity lines run to Ocean Grove via Toms River, where it connects with a former CNJ ROW that would be viable for a passenger restart, and Pemberton, where it meets the commuter network; to Atlantic City via Winslow Jct., where it meets the Cape May line and the commuter network; and to Ocean City, which meets the Cape May line at Tuckahoe. A dinky would also service Wildwood from Wildwood Jct. on the Cape May line.

All four lines would cross the Delair Bridge over the Delaware; only a single-track lift bridge, this presents probable capacity issues--even at hourly service, this represents a crossing roughly every 7.5 minutes (60/4=15, and you have to factor in that it's hourly service each direction, so 15/2). When the bridge needs to be raised (as it occasionally does), this will throw service times off--however, that is a compromise worth living with for direct Philadelphia service.

Two small natural lines extend out from Atlantic City. Both can be serviced with light rail. These two lines lead to Mays Landing and Somers Point, respectively; the Somers Point line runs through a densely built-up area while the Mays Landing line accesses Shore destinations such as the Shore Mall and the Atlantic City Institute of Technology (abbreviated ACIT).

The core network converges on Camden; there, passengers can transfer to PATCO (a fare union would be most advisable) or debark for local destinations. We will talk about the opportunities and pitfalls Camden offers soon. Tops on the agenda: figuring out how to bring a commuter rail throat into a city that willfully destroyed theirs during the '60s.

The six lines reach Camden from: Trenton, New Egypt (Ft. Dix), Hammonton (via Clementon), Millville and Bridgeton (via Vineland and Glassboro), Salem, and Carneys Point (Pennsgrove). Let us tackle each of these in turn.

The Trenton line is, more or less, NJ Transit's current River Line--the way it's set up is as FRA-noncompliant "light rail" that runs along trolley tracks through downtown Camden. The equipment the River Line uses, however, is a type of Stadler DMU related to the Flirt, which, if you recall, is one of the pieces of rail equipment that must be made legal in any sane rail regulation regime. If the FRA regulations went away tomorrow, it would be the favored type of equipment throughout the South Jersey network.

There are two components to this line: the downtown Camden light rail line, and the commuter line, shared with a freight line, along the former Camden & Amboy main line as far as Bordentown, and its branch to Trenton thence.

In order to build a true commuter network, the Camden light rail line has to be repurposed. (I will talk more about what this entails later.) So we'll concentrate on the former C&A line.

This line connects with SEPTA's existing R7 Trenton Line and NJT's existing Northeast Corridor Line at (unsurprisingly) Trenton. Abandonment Repurposing of the River Line's existing Trenton terminus and termination on Penn Station's platforms--thereby allowing for cross-platform transfers--would be superior; the River Line's existing terminus is an artifact of the FRA's insanity more than anything else.

A secondary terminus would lie in Burlington. Coincidentally, this would be the natural terminus of any commuter rail operation running down the former C&A main line from Amboy to Bordentown via Hightstown and Henrietta. This idea has been marked as the Amboy Line on the above map, but will have to be considered in more detail whenever I get around to devising a commuter rail strategy for New York.

The Trenton and Amboy Lines, considered together, can be considered the Camden & Amboy Lines, much like the Morris & Essex Lines, for obvious reasons.

The Fort Dix line (which I affectionately think of as the Military Line) runs from Camden to the east, to Ft. Dix and a terminus in New Egypt via Maple Shade and Mt. Holly. East of Mt. Holly the right-of-way has been torn up, (but can still be rebuilt with the relocation of some local rail-trails). The Military Line itself curves north at Pemberton, whereas the intercity Atlantic Line continues to the east.

The intercity line obviously runs express past many of the stops on the local line; it definitely stops at Mt. Holly and (maybe) Maple Shade. Beyond Pemberton, it stops at a couple of smallish hamlets and crosses another proposed North Jersey line in Toms River.

This line would follow the former CNJ Southern Division main to Lakehurst and a branch thence to Tuckerton; this branch can merge into a southern approach at Amboy or into a Northeast Corridor approach in Monmouth. The Northeast Corridor approach works better for a Penn Station terminus; however, any large-scale commuter network optimization of the New York metro would likely require a far larger nest with several more tunnels--it would not be, in short, surprising for a strong southern network to make a Manhattan approach via Staten Island. (I like calling this line the Barnegat Line.)

The Clementon line follows the PRSL's former Clementon Branch, a core commuter line to Hammonton via Winslow Junction. Although it's not far to the south of PATCO, it would offer an alternative service type, and eventually, hopefully a different set of destinations.

Local trains from Atlantic City can also terminate in Hammonton.

The Millville Line is the core line of South Jersey commuter rail. Electrified once, a long time ago, this line extends from Camden to Millville via Glassboro and Vineland. Two other lines branch off in Woodbury; at Vineland the line splits into Millville and Bridgeton sections. The Millville section follows the former PRSL alignment, while the Bridgeton one follows a (mostly) CNJ one.

This Bridgeton alignment would be served by an off-peak dinky but have half the peak trains go through utilizing the connection. At peak, the dinky can be utilized to fill service gaps for both the Millville and Vineland segments.

An intermediate terminus would exist in Glassboro.

The Salem line utilizes a former PRSL alignment from Woodbury to Salem; it runs through some of the most rural areas served by the network. However, despite this rural character, it also runs through a core of small towns, like Swedesboro. Trains can run through to Salem, and Swedesboro would be a viable local terminus during rush hour.

The Pennsgrove line runs along the east side of the Delaware, from Camden nearly all the way to the Delaware Memorial Bridge (Carneys Point). As such, it accesses a series of industrial towns mirroring those across the river, like Trainer and Marcus Hook. This line can expect to see high ridership, and has been outfitted with a local terminus at Bridgeport, whose location by the Commodore Barry Bridge's New Jersey approach makes it a potential fit for a park and ride (based on the rule that such infrastructure is most appropriate where hub roads enter the core urban area--that is, the city itself--where rail lines can meet them, and where hub rail lines (commuter or regional networks) cross the middle ring beltway, approximately 15 miles from the city center; US 322 fits the latter as far as I-295).

Unlike the Ft. Dix line, the Clementon, Millville, Salem, and Pennsgrove lines all utilize existing former PRSL rights-of-way, still in freight use. In fact, the vast majority of the former PRSL network, and certainly the key lines, still exists as freight routes; what has been abandoned has generally been converted into rail-trails in populated areas (e.g. from the Turnpike south to Grenloch), and simply not built on in less-populated areas. Unlike the total loss of the former Ma & Pa right-of-way between Baltimore and Towson, a loss which has essentially screwed over commuter rail access to that region's densest suburbs, the vast majority of rail easements in New Jersey still exist, and can still be returned to passenger service.

As previously mentioned, equipment such as that currently running on the River Line would be optimal for the vast majority of the Camden network. This is standard mainline equipment in Europe, and if our rail regulations were remotely sane should be reasonably inexpensive to procure and able to run immediately, without need for pointless variances.

Over time lines can then be electrified, first to local termini and then further; once the network is bought up to a high-grade electrified network certain options look especially tantalizing...

Our next steps will be to consider what it'll take to (a) provide for a suitable Camden terminal and (b) how to best repurpose the Camden light rail route.

Drexel's New Face

Note: This post originally appeared Tuesday. I have been very busy lately.

Looking up at the louvers in the atrium roof.

Drexel University has pinned much of its hopes for enticing the scholars of tomorrow on an aggressive building program. Even now the future LeBow College of Business is a building-shaped hole in the ground and the grass where the new American Campus Communities building is to go has gone away. Beyond ambition and having a reputation for a painfully ugly campus, the aggressive building program was necessitated by the campus’ large stock of aging, poorly sited, and in many cases functionally obsolete, mid-century academic structures. It’s the natural life-cycle–only in this generation instead of orange brick and urban denial, we’re getting green walls and engagement with the city all around. Some things do get better.

For most the past decade, Drexel’s primary campus ambition ... Continue reading at Hidden City Philadelphia.

Suburban, Exurban, New Urban South Philadelphia

Note: This post originally appeared Friday.

The deepest part of South Philadelphia, south of the Schuylkill Expressway, is full of surprises. An Olmsted park graces the corner of Broad and Pattison–as does the NovaCare Center. The most most of us ever see of this area is the Sports Complex, or, if we work there, the Navy Yard.

But behind the Navy Yard lies a swath of (mostly) post-war residential development that reflects the changing perception of ... Continue reading at Hidden City Philadelphia.

Zoo, and HSR in Philadelphia County

Zoo Interlocking is the junction between the Keystone Corridor and Northeast Corridor and one of the most complex interlockings in the nation, shifting passenger trains from two distinct main lines to two distinct station throats, and freight trains three ways.

In the past it was even more complex, with a fourth major direction for freight as well as two different paths for each major movement (that is, two different ways to get from the Northeast Corridor to Suburban Station, two different ways to get from the Main Line to the lower level of 30th St. Station, two different freight bypasses of 30th St. Station, etc.) Much of this redundancy has been stripped out by warring organizations over the years, leading to massive backups when any part of this intricate network fails.

However, Zoo has a key failure: although two of the main wye's three branches are able to handle high-speed interlocking, the third is not. This is not because of a failure of interlocking design, per se, but rather because the best engineering available at the time the interlocking was initially set up forced the third direction to run through a significantly tighter-radius curve than the other two.

As you may have guessed, the tightest-radius connection is the Northeast Corridor side, the east side closest to the zoo Zoo was named after. This connection was built the way it was because it had to simultaneously do two things: (1) elevate from the freight yards along the Schuylkill floodplain--now 30th St. Station, its two leads, and the Powelton Coach Yards--to the level of the river crossing, about 75 feet above the waterline, in only about a mile, while at the same time (2) accommodating the junction between this route and the Pennsylvania's mainline about halfway between.

No matter why it was built, however, it is obsolete if one wants to bring 200 mph trains into 30th Street Station. Since I have it on good authority that that atrocious tunnel proposal is dead even at Amtrak (and was always a consultant's dream to begin with), we have to look at smaller-scale (and cheaper) interventions to accomplish what we want.

Assuming an Airport routing is still desirable--it is certainly feasible--three major interventions are necessary to convert the NEC to a 200 mph + (250 kph +) route through Philadelphia County. They are:
1) Bypass Frankford Jct., which has to be traversed at ~75 mph,
2) Bypass Zoo Interlocking into 30th St. Station's north lead, and
3) Convert the former Reading's Chester Branch into an Airport routing.

See map here.

Bypassing Frankford Jct. is technically the easiest, and the least expensive: the path of Torresdale Avenue, which turns into Erie Avenue at Kensington Avenue is a natural bypass route, and a couple of takings in industrial properties--possibly little more than air-rights takings, as the HSR main would likely have to clear at least one local track before rejoining its own track--would be all the property acquisition needed. Takings would be exclusively industrial.

The trains can traverse Erie (Torresdale) either via an aerial structure or a cut-and-cover tunnel. All types of tunnels are somewhat more expensive than bridges; however, the aerial would have to clear the El at Erie-Torresdale Station, meaning it would have to be ~50 feet off the ground at its apex, rendering it somewhat more expensive than it would otherwise be (e.g. if the aerial could remain at ~30 feet off the ground). So both modes approach cost parity.

Since you can recruit DOT engineers to design an aerial (it's essentially a highway exit overpass, but for trains) whereas even the most basic cut-and-cover tunnel will likely require weaving through underground infrastructure, and since I prefer bridges over tunnels, I'll go with an aerial in this instance. Price tag's probably $250 million, once value-engineered.

Technically the most complex is the Airport routing. Its complexity has nothing to do with attempting an inner-city greenfield routing--it has everything to do with rail uses along the routing. Other than SEPTA's Airport Line, the principal use of the current line is a freight routing to (unsurprisingly enough) Marcus Hook. It is also the routing closest to the river, and thus the one with the most port-related spurs and traffic.

In order to close the Chester Branch east of Essington, CSX will almost certainly require a bypass. My proposed routing, the "Hog Island Freight Bypass", would utilize the former Pennsylvania R.R. 60th Street Branch, most of which is intact (ROW unused for freight is currently used for Auto Mall junk car storage). However, unlike the historical 60th St. Branch, the Hog Island Bypass would meet the CSX main through the former Brill property in Southwest Philly. The connection between the 60th St. Branch and the Chester Branch built for the Airport Line would remain in use as a freight spur for any traffic generated along this alignment (though I don't remember Eastwick's industries having freight rail access).

Now that we've dealt with the freight rail, the next step is to provide the optimal ROW for the passenger service. The Airport Line currently uses the 60th St. Branch to the Chester Branch, but this forces the train through a pair of slow and inefficient corners; a true high-speed routing would continue along the dead-straight Chester Branch until it meets the Northeast Corridor.

The problem with this is that this routing has a surface interchange with the CSX line across the Schuylkill; in addition, the Chester Branch between this interchange and the NEC junction is currently used by CSX as its High Line access line. However, because we moved the freight route for Marcus Hook trains from the Chester Branch to the Hog Island Cutoff, we can go ahead and run passenger trains under the High Line access line, coming out onto the Northeast Corridor. (This routing also allows Airport Line trains to stop at Bartram's Gardens.)

Next, we move to the Airport. The first look we have at the Airport is that we can add a new through cutoff between the Chester Branch and Airport termini, with a somewhat sharp curve by the station. However, this would likely be the more expensive option. A better proposal would be to instead have the through-train Airport station along the Chester Branch, due to the superior curvature (i.e. none). But this is on the wrong side of I-95. So, if this routing is the option decided upon, it will likely become necessary to convert the current Airport Line terminal access to an AirTrain-style light metro. (Fortunately, most of the infrastructure is in place for this; the primary expense would be acquisition of the proper equipment.)

While the Chester Branch has been grade-separated in Philadelphia, such is not the case in Essington, where the small town is hard against the rails. Grade separation, needless to say, is essential here; since we are close to the water line, this will likely take the form of an aerial about 20 feet above the existing freight line (i.e. Plate H double-stack clearance). As the fast passenger line being discussed would allow rerouting the Regional Rail line as well, this local will want a stop in downtown Essington--that is, where the line crosses Wanamaker Avenue. This aerial structure would thence continue across the mouth of Darby Creek and then parallel the Industrial Highway (on top of a disused rail line, possibly PRR, between the road and the Chester Branch) until it returns to the NEC, just south of Eddystone.

What kinds of expenses can be expected for such an undertaking?

1. New track installation (but no re-alignment) between the 60th St. Branch-Chester Branch junction, to the north, and the Penrose Avenue bridge (Penrose Ferry Road) to the south. This may need to be done with grade separation, as it appears to have historically been a grade junction. Assuming prior easement claims can be asserted... $300 million, most of it sunk into the grade separation at the Hog Island-Chester Branch junction.
2. Cut-and cover tunnel under the freight Chester Branch between the NEC and CSX mains... $500 million.
3. New east cutoff between Eastwick and Airport. / New Airport station, conversion of terminal network into AirTrain system... $300 million (whichever way).
4. 3-mile aerial structure from the 4th St.-Chester Branch level crossing west to new NEC junction... $700 million.
5. ~5 miles of new constant-tension electrification... $100 million.

All of these add up to an estimated price tag of... $1.9 billion. (This compares favorably with the asinine tunnel, whose initial cost estimate would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $8.5 billion and work its way up from there.)

It will cost at least $2 billion to bring HSR to PHI. This cost also includes a SEPTA expansion. (The cost of this expansion alone would be about half that, as it wouldn't need to worry about the extended aerial through Essington or grade-separating the junction between the 60th St. and Chester Branches, or restoration of the 60th St. Branch through the Auto Mall, but it would need to worry about a new alignment into the NEC on the east end, dealing with the Airport network, and extending electrification. And without the HSR line, the west-end return to the NEC isn't viable, making the line's natural terminus Essington.)

Station stops on this Airport Line would be: Bartram's Gardens, Elmwood (63rd St.), 70th St., Eastwick (84th St.), Airport (somewhat west of 90th and Bartram), Tinicum (4th Ave.), and Essington (Wanamaker Avenue). Service frequency would likely have to be half-hourly, due to the lack of slots on the SEPTA Main Line.

Let's return, then, to where we started: bypassing Zoo. Zoo sits between the Frankford Jct. bypass and Airport extension in terms of complexity and hence expense. One one hand, the Zoo bypass will be more complex than a Frankford Jct. bypass, due to the fact it has to deal with the Schuylkill; on the other, it has nowhere near as many moving parts as the Airport project.

Because of Lemon Hill, the only sensible place to diverge the bypass is where the NEC and Schuylkill Expressway split, just north of Spring Garden; a narrow easement opportunity is available between the Schuylkill and 34th St.

There are two ways of approaching this bypass: a bridge or a tunnel. Both have their challenges. The tunnel would be an immersed-tube (it's shallower) but the east approach would need to be drilled out of solid schist. On the other hand, the bridge would likely require a very steep west approach--it would have to clear the Schuylkill and the, er, Schuylkill--and it would also need a new easement through Fairmount Park. However, unlike the tunnel, the bridge would rejoin the existing line more quickly, and hence be quite a bit cheaper.

The tunnel offers superior engineering. The bridge offers advertising...but it would also attract NIMBYs who wouldn't want to change so much as a tree in the park.

My estimate is that the tunnel would cost about $1.5 billion and the bridge $750 million. In either event, however, both junctions would have to be squeezed between current infrastructure.

It is also my estimation that it is infeasible to attempt to bring 30th St. Station's north throat to speeds greater than about 120 mph (which would still lose the 1.5 minutes currently expended traversing Zoo). Both the bridge and tunnel routings I offer are likely going to have to be that speed.

The Architecture of Wissahickon: Urban, Suburban, Midcentury, Victorian

The controversial Roxborough development proposal that caused quite a stir last week is at the edge of one of the city’s more remarkable neighborhoods. Staunchly middle-class, this neighborhood hangs tenaciously onto the slope between Ridge Avenue and the beginning of the Wissahickon Gorge, like a mining town halfway up a mountain.

It is also remarkable in that it has been continuously developed and filled out over the last century and a half, with a housing mix ranging all the way ... Continue reading at Hidden City Philadelphia.

South Jersey Rail Assets

Now entering the third part of this series, I'd like to focus on South Jersey's underutilized rail assets. Where I am going is looking at what it will take to provide a complete commuter rail network throughout the Philadelphia area, and unlike Pennsylvania, South Jersey is woefully underserved, home to only the Atlantic City Line, which is an intercity service; the PATCO Speedline, which provides local service to Lindenwold; and the River Line, a light-rail commuter-rail thingamabob utilizing Stadler GTWs (a diesel variant of the Flirt). A substantial amount of South Jersey is thus rendered car-dependent.

It wasn't always like this. Like the rest of the Northeast, South Jersey was once thick with rails. It still is. Most of those rails have, however, long been converted to freight spurs, and routes which weren't but have passenger potential rail-trails. In a few cases rails were removed entirely, but the easements remain. At one point, a large commuter rail network converged on Camden, across the river, much like it still does in Hoboken today.

So the point of this post is, like the past two, to survey South Jersey's available rail assets.

We begin with the River Line and work our way, again, clockwise inasmuch is possible.

1. The River Line extends along the Delaware between Camden and Trenton, and is, as referenced, a cross between a light rail line and commuter rail. (Call it Dallas-style light rail.) It currently functions with an FRA waiver. In the long term, as other commuter rail resources fill in around Camden, it may need to be broken up, with the core line running as commuter rail and the edges light rail in Camden and Trenton.

2. A Trenton Branch of the Reading appears to wind along the path shown on the map between Trenton and West Trenton railroad stations. Conversion of this route into light rail would be welcomed.

3. At Bordentown the former Camden & Amboy main splits off from the River Line, which utilizes its Trenton Branch. Like the former Pennsylvania and Reading (Central of New Jersey) mains further to the north, can it be cross-utilized between the three commute markets? If so, the fare union should extend between Burlington and South Amboy.

4. The Atlantic Division is a former division of the Pennsylvania Railroad, running from Camden through Mt. Holly due east. It originally extended to Bay Head; the former right-of-way east of Ocean Gate--thankfully, a natural terminus--has been wiped out.

On the New York end of things, a service restoration should be considered along the former CNJ line from Red Bank to Toms River--possibly even as far as Barnegat.

5. What I am calling the Fort Dix Branch is the remnants of a cutoff between the Camden & Amboy main and the Atlantic Division; the route in use extends north from Pemberton to Ft. Dix and New Egypt.

6. The Clementon Branch is one of two lines between Camden and Atlantic City. The former Atlantic City R.R. main line, it was phased out in favor of the more northerly line. However, seeing as that line is occupied by heavy rail and intercity service, a Camden-Hammonton commuter service would be better off using this line.

7. The PATCO Speedline follows the former Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines (PRSL) main line to Lindenwold; the Atlantic City Line (ACL) follows it from Atlantic City to the Delair Cutoff (which takes it across the river). Service from Philadelphia to the various Shore towns should be considered intercity, however, and unlike the commuter services, which can terminate in Camden with a PATCO transfer at Walter Rand, these lines extend to 30th St. in a grand fishhook approach along the NEC and across the single-track Delair Bridge. (ACL service, however, can be twice as frequent--hourly.) In addition, a separate, peak-hour commuter service from Atlantic City to Egg Harbor City may be implemented.

8. The Newfield Branch originally extended from Newfield to Atlantic City. While the services of the whole branch obviously aren't needed, part of it is marked as a commuter line from Atlantic City to Mays Landing.

9. The Somers Point Branch was a branch from Atlantic City to Somers Point. Old PRSL maps show either a bridge or a ferry from it to Ocean City; this is one of the two new commuter lines suggested from Atlantic City.

10. The Cape May Branch ran from the Main Line at Winslow Jct. south to Cape May, crossing the Newfield Branch at Richland. It is a primarily intercity line, although a local dinky service may be put into place between Cape May Court House and Cape May.

11. The Ocean City Branch ran from a connection with the Cape May Branch in Tuckahoe to Ocean City. Atlantic City, Ocean City, and Cape May are the three primary intercity destinations down the Shore.

12. The Marmora Branch is a freight right-of-way that extends to a large facility at Beesley's Point. There may be justification for a dinky service along this line.

13. The Wildwood Branch runs from Wildwood Jct. on the Cape May Branch to Wildwood. Like the Princeton Branch, a dinky service would be appropriate here.

14. The Grenloch Branch is a short branch from Gloucester City to Grenloch. Despite its shortness, however, it sits halfway between the Clementon and Millville Branches in the core South Jersey suburbs. As a consequence, it would likely get ridership--if service patterns are right--on the order of the Norristown Line. In addition, this line would be targeted for heavy rail conversion if the conditions are right (generating Speedline-order ridership); this would allow for potential extensions to Turnersville and Monroe.

15. The Millville Branch was at one point the PRSL's Camden commuter operations' spine. At one point electrified, it extends between Camden and Millville, with a freight operation from there south to Leesburg, and a former passenger operation east to Woodbine Jct. via Woodbine proper. It crosses the CNJ main at-grade in downtown Vineland, and was recently the subject of a River Line-type extension as far as Glassboro. Glassboro is the natural local terminus on this line, and Millville the general.

16. The Southern Division, originally of the CNJ, between Winslow Jct. and Bridgeton may offer useful expansion possibilities. East of Landisville, however, it closely follows the Cape May Branch through a relatively sparsely-populated area.

17. The Bridgeton branch, originally of the PRSL, largely exists only as an abandoned easement north to Glassboro. Bridgeton can't handle being the terminus of two lines, but both offer tradeoffs.

The PRSL's direct alignment, straight north, takes it to Camden fastest. But it passes through a relatively unpopulated section of the state, and its peak ridership thus stunted.

The CNJ alignment through Winslow Jct. would pass through Vineland, and potentially directly access Philadelphia, rather than Camden; however, as a commuter line, it would be low on the totem pole of Delair crossings, and it would be routed by the most circuitous of all routes.

In between is the option to utilize the CNJ line from Bridgeport to Vineland, but the Millville Branch after. While it would not be as fast (or direct) as the PRSL alignment, it would pass through the most populated areas and offer reasonably direct commuter service to Camden.

Of course, a large part of this discussion depends on the ridership a Bridgeton alignment vs. a Millville one would generate. If Bridgeton does not generate as much ridership as Millville (or inadequate ridership, period), it may make sense to just operate a dinky to it, if anything at all, from Vineland--the same also applying to Millville in the case of the obverse.

18. The Salem Branch runs through the heart of Salem County, to, well, Salem. While the country is generally rural, a series of larger towns dot this line--Woodstown, Swedesboro, and Mt. Royal--suggesting that, if properly implemented, ridership may well exceed implementations. (A market in Camden wouldn't hurt matters either.)

19. The Pennsgrove Branch runs along the shore of the Delaware between Woodbury and Carney's Point. With multiple industries and larger communities along this line, it would draw some of the Camden network's highest ridership--probably second only to the Millville Branch.

Now that we know what rail assets we have in South Jersey, we can start on the next step: understanding how to use them in such a way as to maximize ridership and accessibility. Two obvious next steps for our program come out of the sheer act of surveying potential assets: (1) splitting the routes into intercity routes utilizing the Delair Bridge (as I'd intimated before), and (2) using a Camden terminus to catalyze transit-oriented development and growth--growth which would, hopefully, finally offer the city a stable fiscal base.