How Should SEPTA Redesign Regional Rail? They Gave Me Three Options...

[@alanthefisher]

I pretty much agree. Though it's interesting that the AC line is on the third option. I'd love to know what they mean by that.

[@coteries655]

late here but during the transit talk they actually mentioned that expanding nj transit service into 30th st station is possible and has precedent. some day we be boarding nj transit trains to ny penn at 30th.

[@cut_and_cover]

I am Scenario 2 all the way. Remember, these transfers will be timed. Having to transfer is only mildly annoying for intermediate trips, and if you're going all the way to Philly, a timed transfer is negligible. The fact is that the outer sections, with only a few exceptions, are either A: Auto dependent communities like Exton where people won't ride the train unless it's to get to the big city, or B: Walkable towns like Trenton where people won't leave unless it's to access some service or employment that their community is too small to support. Thus, they will also be going to Philly. It's the near suburbs where we need to run a frequent network integrated with the buses and make serious use of our infrastructure. Imagine waiting at 30th St and every hour, you get 3 trains that say "Radnor" and 1 that says "Radnor Transfer for Thorndale". Not too bad, right?

[@history_leisure]

Wouldn’t it make more sense to extend to Paoli in plan 2 so you could get trains to Throndale/Coastville plus Pennsylvanian and Keystone Services? Might be a little bit about wanting a one seat ride from my SEPTA stop, but the line originally was to Paoli and I think Villanova and a few other stops still only mention Paoli

[@cut_and_cover]

@@history_leisure I think that could be possible long-term, but it should be used as a bargaining chip against Tredyffrin, Easttown, and Radnor for being so awful with the zoning around stations. Actually, to be fair, Radnor has a TOD zone. It's around St. David's station. Also, Wayne is walkable. That's why I think the Paoli/Thorndale should go out 2 more stops if they're planning on building a whole new interlocking anyway.

[@history_leisure]

@@cut_and_cover Stratford is my station. There’s some businesses and an apartment complex right there, and a shopping center with an Acme and a Target (ex-Kmart) a little ways down. Not as good as Wayne, Wynnewood, or Paoli

[@history_leisure]

Maybe not good to walk to/from there in inclement weather

[@cut_and_cover]

@@history_leisure True, true. Gotta reactivate the P&W Stafford branch.

[@jdillon8360]

Option 1. Just give the most number of people the most frequent service possible. Commuters will tolerate slower but more frequent services over a faster service that comes only once per hour. Once you're on a moving train, you can relax. If you've just missed a train and you know the next one is more than 10 or 15 minutes way, you'll either look for another option or suffer as time grinds to a standstill almost.

[@ccityplanner1217]

Remember that the Commuter Tunnel is quadruple-track: the express (as in no stop at North Broad Street) tracks connect to all the lines coming in through University City and going out via Fern Rock, while the local tracks connect to everything else. I believe each pair should easily be able to take a train every 10 minutes. A train every 5 minutes would be feasible with grade separation of the Norristown branch at North Philadelphia and possibly also Wayne Junction.

[@MarkWaller2]

This consultation is interesting and encouraging, though the options seem rather oddly structured to me - they have bundled together various features that don't necessarily have to be related at all. For example, integrated ticketing with other modes and operators can (and should!) be taken forward regardless of the service pattern on the network, so it should be part of all the scenarios. Similarly building high platforms: this is obviously beneficial regardless of the service pattern, so why is it in only one scenario? I'm doubtful that any of the service patterns in these scenarios is actually optimal for the network. Scenario 1 is probably unnecessarily frequent on some routes (e.g. Cynwyd), and conversely might not be frequent enough elsewhere. Scenario 2's enforced transfers between the "Silver Line" routes and other parts of the network will, I think, significantly disadvantage and discourage passengers from non-Silver Line routes. The express services in Scenario 3 will no doubt be welcome, but why can't they be part of an overall timetable enhancement? Overall, I'd suggest a hybrid scenario, on a more European model: - A basic hourly timetable, with trains on each line at the same time past the hour all day - Frequency enhancements to half-hourly or quarter-hourly, on the same "clock face" pattern, as determined by demand on each route and time of day - A mix of "all stops" and express trains in the basic hourly pattern, again as determined by demand - Trains on all or most lines run through Center City

[@moishglukovsky]

Option 3, with NJT AC line and Amtrak Keystone integrated would be a big step towards a genuine regional transit vision. As a first step, it would be great if PATCO were integrated, too, and that it’s fare system were interoperable with SEPTA Key.

[@Only1Originals]

Great video, I’d opt for option 1. I think it’s the most realistic change

[@SamanthamusPrimeV28050]

I thought the Norristown/manayunk station would be abandoned. But then again, I would like 2nd option and 3rd option. But would it mean that my father would have to transfer from 1 station to another train just to get to work?

[@TheMansfieldBusGuy]

1. The Most Realistic and probably the easiest is the emplacement. 2. The Best in my opinion. All high floor platforms with a 15-minute frequency for most lines but sucks for people living in the far suburbs. Maybe they could have 1/4 SilverLine trains could go from the center city to the outer suburbs(Doylestown, Warminster, Elwyn, and Paoli) instead of having people swap trains but if it's gonna 15-minute headways that shouldn't be a problem 3. All day express actually doesn't sound that bad

[@AutoGamerZ_]

2. That's not always a good idea for service-reliability reasons through the central section depending on the situation on the further-out segments. - Especially if the central corridor is utilised to (near-) capacity. There's ways to negate that but they tend to require (mostly) grade seperated rail, and consistent priority for trains on the line in question for signalling purposes on the outer branches. Something which the Elizabeth Line in London with their 2 tph branch to Reading will get away with just fine, but I am not so sure about with the Philly area systems. Another reason could have to do with rolling stock: They may wish to use more metro-like rolling stock on the frequent more metr-like service that reflects the type of service and audience it caters too, that is also more in-line with the accessibility of the proposed high-floor platforms, that is less ideal for, or even incompatible with the outer services.

[@JosefDerKaiser]

I have a complaint with number 2 though. The simple fact is, Ambler and Fort Washington get so much traffic, stopping the metro style service at Glenside and forcing transfers for anyone outside that doesn't seem prudent.

[@moishglukovsky]

Very insightful comments.

[@history_leisure]

The metro style reminds of lines 7, 9, 10 in Madrid which are two segments split at Estadio Metropolitano, Puerta de Arganda/Vicálvaro (Cercanías station name), and Tres Olivios (although it’s still Zone A until after ML1’s northern terminus at Las Tablas). However, they were built with this in mind. While most of the Paoli/Throndale Line is quad tracked (except at Paoli and maybe a bit further out, I’m not as familiar past Paoli as I’ve only been on that rail segment inbound on the Pennsylvanian maybe half asleep from getting the Capital Limited in the middle of the night from Sandusky, OH

[@Token_Nerd]

Option 2 is without a doubt the best option. High floor platforms at so many stations that need it. The centre city tunnel can easily support the number of trains its proposing as is, and most of the 60 minute sections either have Amtrak service or don't actually need better frequencies. I think what they'll end up doing is making the individual silver line trains specific services, kind of like what they've done with the trolleys. The one annoying thing is that some trains will require transfers where they don't make sense (See everything north of Glenside outside of the rush hour). West Trenton I see, but not the paoli thorn dale or Newark line.

[@apollotransit6711]

Given the 4tph to Glenside, 2 tph to Lansdale, and 1 tph to Doylestown for example, seems like it would make way more sense to just have 2 tph out of that 4 continue past Glenside rather than forcing a transfer. I'm not sure why the whole network's frequent services would need to be branded differently or use different trains than the less frequent outer portions. The Glenside branch in particular could be made high frequency just through the interlining. Option 2 is still definitely the best IMO, but the network layout doesn't make any sense for people out in the suburbs.

[@JeffKnarr]

It would seem like they could make the less frequent trains further out fill some of the inbound slots

[@Token_Nerd]

@@apollotransit6711 On the website they say its because of different rolling stock that will be used on the metro (15 min service) sections.

[@apollotransit6711]

@@Token_Nerd hmm... that seems to make sense as a long term solution, but in the interim as they're trying to reimagine the system that overcomplicates things way more than they need to be. If they really want distinct trains (which I wouldn't be opposed to) they should run them on lines where the 15 minute service covers the entire corridor, and continue to use existing trains on corridors with inner and outer services.

[@JeffKnarr]

I think I figured out why they have the transfer. The sections out past the 4tph is more prone to delays. And, the knock on effects of a late train on these higher service levels is going to be a lot more disruptive to the entire network. So, instead the outer riders have to wait to benefit everyone else

[@johnchambers8528]

I agree that the first option is most likely the best for existing riders on the lines now in service. Any time you add frequency between trains you make the service more appealing since you don’t have to plan as much on any activity you are going to. With the high cost of gas and downtown parking it should appeal to people who don’t ride during peak hours. It also helps make trips through center city to other suburban activities more appealing since if you have to connect with another line there there is less wait time to make your connection and a faster overall trip time.

[@ccityplanner1217]

I don't think it's practical to turn 5 trains per hour round at Chester because it involves crossing all the way from one side to the other of the NEC, conflicting with every single other train. You could build a flyover, but then you'd be committed to using Chester as the permanent terminal. From a railway operations perspective, it would be better if the crossing over were eliminated at Trenton too by getting rid of the break of stage & running a joint NT Transit/SEPTA service covering the whole 90 miles from NYC to the terminal platforms at Philly Suburban.

[@AutoGamerZ_]

All three options look at least okay. But they all have their own issues, though also their own benefits. Solution one sarcafices speed but offers basically everyone very usable european style frequencies all day every day which is basically unheard off in America outside of New York. - Making transport reliable, consistently, everywhere in the network in a way that the other two proposals don't do consistently. Not everywhere. Solution two has a lot of similarities to the Sydney commuter rail lines with both it's benefits and drawbacks. It's not faster then solution one but it's absolutely massive frequencies on lines with more potential have the potential to give an absolutely massive boost to public transport use accross the region and the network that the other two plans don't. - Even with it's frequency and interchange drawbacks further out (Though, the coverage still looks fairly solid, especially to American standards). The amount of extra infrastructure needed for this is probably not as big as you'd think, although it will likely need high-capacity signalling on the central corridor. I'd say proposal one and two are about equal. Solution three IF executed well has the potential to get the best of both worlds, by offering fast express services bringing the outer areas in a more realistic reach of the inner areas by public transport, which allows relatively more people to just not buy a car, increasing ridership in the long run among demographics the other two plans don't reach, but on the lines that get express-i-fied, loses a lot of the frequent local coverage which'd have to be taken over by other transport. This system has similarities to how Intercity and Sprinter trains operate in the Netherlands (basically express regional trains and local commuter and stopping trains). While this system will likely attract nowhere near as much ridership in the short term in a place like the US, it has potential to do a lot of good long-term when combined with solid coverage-based public transport from the express stops far from the central area that is currently relatively lacking and really shouldn't be overlooked either. - Although as it stands, I believe Solution three is the weakest for it's very low frequencies on some of the local lines on the corridors with more frequent express service, which is likely caused by infrastructure limitations (local trains get in the way of express trains, would need infrastructure adjustments and extra tracks at numerous stations to faciliate more local service, thus they priortised very heavily on express only on the lines with express service.) They completely missed the balance. Therefore: I don't like solution three in it's current form, despite having potentially the biggest benefits long-term. It seems like they wanted all the benefit this approach gives without the upfront costs that requires. **In an ideal world:** Use solution two, but extend the peak only trains into central to all-day (at least on weekdays till about 8pm) by cutting the metro-service in Sundays & evenings from 15 minute headways to 30 minute headways. This gets you most of the benefit of solution three, all the benefits of solution two and negates most of it's "exchange" downsides for longer-distance passengers into the Central area, and while not as frequent as solution one, replaces frequency with service at a speed where it could be relatively more competitive with the car when paired with good local transport connections in the outer area. This does likely require more modifications to infrastructure in the central area, as well as in limited spots outside of it, making such a solution likely giving higher upfront costs, even if operationally it's not necessarily more expensive. This is probably why in solution three, in SEPTA's plan they focus so much on express frequency and neglect the local frequencies so much on the lines with express service: More local service needs relatively more infrastructure adjustment in order not to interrupt the express services.

[@carlhoward3365]

I like option 1. I think that would get more people to ride the train. Knowing that a train will always be coming versus having to wait 45 mins to an hour for the next train. Especially during 'off peak' hours.

[@EasternSeaboardProductions]

Also, SEPTA to lancaster is good for transit out there

[@BoxcarJerry]

There's been talk at Septa of them taking over the Keystone. Haven't heard much more about it but the Plan 3 you mention sounds like it could happen. Ridership over all is down on Regional Rail and with more people working from home I can't see that changing. Maybe I am totally wrong, but the parking lots at the stations tell that story.

[@johnforestersworstnightmar3756]

How did y’all even hear the regional rail changes? I couldn’t find anything when I googled it and didn’t see anything on SEPTA’s social media about it. The only reason I know that they updated the website is because I know people who work with SEPTA. Just thought it was weird because they’re having a public meeting about it in two days and another one next week

[@CaseysTrains]

I believe you misunderstood Option 2. You're not transfering where there more frequent service. Of the 4 Trains an hour (Every 15 minutes), only 1 of those trains keeps going to the outer end of the line (Every 60 Minutes).

[@ClassyWhale]

That's not the read I got...for example, Thorndale to Radnor is "All day regional rail service at all stations, transfer to SilverLine" with only express rush hour service using the same train into CC

[@MelvinVonMTodd]

They need more Wilmington Line trains.

[@GeldaStPete]

right? It's always so busy, packed with people.... and the 3-hour gap at night (weekdays and weekends) sucksssss bad especially when there IS a train departing@8:30 which terminates @ Marcus Hook

[@williamhuang8309]

For "Metro Frequency" (Option 2) Just terminate some trains early. E.g. run 4tph on the silver line sections, but have 1/2 or 3/4 of trains terminate at the end of Silver Line service and have the remainder continue. That way you still get the service frequency of Option 2 but with the network simplicity of Option 1.

[@travelsofmunch1476]

Option 2 advocate over here: I commute on MNR from Wassaic to GC and the cross platform transfer is a piece of cake, that shouldn’t be a problem

[@schwenda3727]

Just recently getting this idea for Philly after starting to brainstorm this same idea for Boston: Could they convert existing heavy regional rail lines that go NOWHERE NEAR the main highway bypass (in Philly’s case, the PA Turnpike & I-476 (do locals still refer to the “free” part of 476 as the “blue route” or just harder core “roadgeeks”?)) to light metro lines? Like St. Louis or Baltimore, they basically operate as high standard light rail with some metro/subway characteristics but more frequent and presumably lower long term operating costs? With potential said lines simply terminate in front of the regional rail lines? Just thinking very aloud…

[@adriafitzy6459]

I wanna know more about option 3, because I think it could really be nice in helping interstate connectivity. Especially if it mean the ACRL could improve. But I wonder how PATCO slots into that proposal... But all 3 options are at least decent.

[@johnsmart964]

Thank you very much for this very interesting insight as to these proposals, boring is most definitely best. Through services are best also, the idea is to have as few complications as possible for the travelling public, and a robust clockface timetable every thirty minutes is pretty good. High frequencies can cause high problems if and when things go wrong with the timetable and then make it hard to get, on track again.

[@connecticutmultimodaltrans8226]

I think a hybrid of 1 and 2 is best. High platforms, more trains. 30 mins should be the low bar for regional rail IMO. Trenton service at 30 mins is even questionable. Amtrak can stick to the longer rides on the Keystone, making them faster. Tbh I think to a new user, the Hartford Line is confusing. Tickets can be purchased at an Amtrak station agent, who will give you an old paper stock ticket that they still make you sign for if using card 😅 or you can call or use the quiktrak machines. There's also the app. But CTrail has its own app too. And an agent in Hartford, but I don't think they technically sell tickets. but the tickets technically have different expirations and it's not clear at all that there's more service outside of Amtrak's trains when on the reservation system but tbh that's Amtrak's problem for not showing connecting services. They do it for the Atlantic City line, dunno why that's it. It's confusing. But I think it was the only choice given Amtrak's shortage of both Amfleets and more crucially ex-Metroliner cab cars unless you downgraded everything to another style of car and ran it with Amtrak crews like Shore Line East. sigh. It will get better with new equipment

[@transitcaptain]

I have my own plan to improve SEPTA and it includes a lot of express service. But the main part is bringing service to towns like Pottstown, Reading, Phoenixville, Parkesburg , Bethlehem, and Allentown

[@chrishowell4845]

Didn`t there used to be service to all those towns back in the day?

[@transitcaptain]

@@chrishowell4845 Yes, back in the day. Now I’m looking at reviving computer service to those destinations

[@alexisdespland4939]

what is the time frame for implementing this. in the medium to long term you should do at lest two of the tree plans.

[@blackman7437]

I don't get how the express service in Option 3 is supposed to work, especially on the West Trenton Line. That line only has two tracks, so how are they going to bypass the local stations. Plus, unlike the Trenton line, where there are definitive stations that have more ridership than other stations, every station on the West Trenton line has around the same ridership. So them choosing Bethayres and Woodbourne as express stops is pretty random. It feels like they're expecting people to drive to one of these stations for faster service, which kind of screws over people who don't have a car. Plus, the parking lots at Woodbourne and Bethayres are too small to handle that demand. It's also annoying that stations in walkable areas with OK transit connections, like Langhorne-Pendel or Somerton, get bypassed in this plan.

[@philwasson]

"Rad-Nor"? Like the name of an alien in a mid-20th century B-movie? Accent is on the first syllable, like you'd probably pronounce (Gilda) "Radner", "radish", (Daniel) "Radcliffe", etc.

[@andrewmazzarini2742]

Lol it's like you saw Miles's response to my comment on his video and thought "hold my coffee" Anyway, I'm most in favor of the "All Day Speed" plan because it actually integrates the Atlantic City Line into the system!

[@ClassyWhale]

I really think they could've thought that title through a bit more though...

[@BigBlueMan118]

@3:37 - that is only 14 Trains per hour from the North of the city and 18 Trains per hour from the South - not actually that many, Thameslink in London, City Loop in Melbourne, RER in Paris and many more commuter/regional rail systems can all run 24TPH in each direction through their city underground tunnels.

[@Brian_rock_railfan]

may be sepa should the 1st one first then the 3rd one ?

[@tonysegro]

I'm not in Philly alot but why is there no under ground corridor connecting Amtrak 30th St station to the 30th St station on Septa Market Frankford Line?

[@MrTanker2012]

Northeast Philadelphia in the house 💪🏾

[@ClassyWhale]

That was FAST

[@MrTanker2012]

@@ClassyWhale u kno As a broad street train operator I'm hoping for new trains and a new extension line 💪🏾🙌🏾🙏🏾🙌🏾💪🏾

[@raymondkerstetter2884]

All lines should be connected maybe using same type of trains even if it involves changing the gauge. We can use the same trains and tracks for Regional BSS El PATCO NJT Amtrak etc. Throw in Roosevelt Blvd subway, El to NJ South Philly Navy Yard , all the projects planned years ago but never put forward. And above all dont take another 100 years to do all this.

[@apollotransit6711]

Tbh I don't think the Hartford Line is really a model for regional rail services. It makes things more confusing for passengers if they don't know they can use either service, and there's no logical reason a single service should be operated by two agencies other than splitting costs. Option 3 in the SEPTA plan hinges too heavily on the decisions of other rail operators rather than strengthening their own system and creates a complex and confusing network.

[@jhonezcronic]

Philadelphia needs a mix of 2 & 3 ASAP turn the inner city lines to a Metro. Link with Amtrak and NJT .. and build a Roosevelt Subway to Bucks County and problem Solved

[@jg-7780]

What’s not clear to me with scenario 2 is whether you’d actually need to transfer to get to the outer stations, or if the frequent parts through run to the infrequent parts

[@_drbrd_]

Great video. Any reason why you emphasized train frequency on the Cynwyd line?

[@ClassyWhale]

Because it has 6 trains per weekday currently, and all of the plans seem to move it up to something akin to the Princeton Dinky

[@transitcaptain]

I think it would be interesting if the two chestnut hill lines and the Cynwyd line was converted to be a part of the subway or light rail. I think Subway is better

[@justabarefootcollegeboy4934]

I think option 2 is the most realistic one they'll do.

[@EasternSeaboardProductions]

Philly needs severe upgrades

[@stephensardos6418]

In my personal opinion, it just seems like scenario 3, they just listed every connecting service and cut back on trains on certain lines. Although, seeing the Atlantic City Rail Line on there did make me laugh and I would like to know what possessed them to list that. If they did operate the ACRL, it would open up a can of worms that wouldn't be good, I.e. union issues, Conrail, Agreements with NJ State, and the fact that it isn't electrified. There is absolutely no way that would work.

[@moishglukovsky]

Operation isn’t the issue; just having the fare systems interoperable would really be all you need.

[@keepit7532]

3 is the best tbh

[@blintscav]

Get what you're wsaying about complexity but 15 minute frequency to Chestnut Hill and Norristown is worth it I think

[@Ih8kone]

They need to rename the West Trenton Line "The Ewing Line"

[@jm-bv1wh]

Chestnut Hill West and Cynwyd line both need to be every 30 minutes at a minimum, every 15 minutes preferable.

[@Punnybone55]

You may want to relocate your thumbnail picture of yourself from the lower left corner to the upper left corner, so it's not blocking any of the system maps. That would make each concept much easier to evaluate.

[@chrishowell4845]

I heard a story that SEPTA service is going back to Coatesville....Anybody know if that`s true? I do know that service on the Elwyn line is being extended to WAWA

[@ClassyWhale]

It sounds like it will happen eventually, But I read that on Wikipedia so who knows

[@2x.Zy.]

Hello Classy Whale I have a question about the septa sign ur background how did u put it up because I have one and I don’t know how to put it on my wall

[@ClassyWhale]

Lots of sticky tack!

[@2x.Zy.]

@@ClassyWhale ok got it thanks for the info

[@2x.Zy.]

@@ClassyWhale Also another thing when u said u rode the Chestnut hill east line are you sure it was east because On Thursday April 28 I seen someone who looked like you on the Chestnut hill west line and for a sec I thought it was u maybe not but hey just might have been u

[@twistedwhiskers8776]

people who live in the mid to far suburbs of Philadelphia (30+min to center city by train ) like me They don't give shit about for scenario 2 they're saying scenario two has the highest increase for people within 15 minute walk have frequent service but people in the mid to far suburbs have to wait an hour for a train or find a way to get to a more frequent station

[@jay-z635]

No , No transfers, that's too confusing. It's very irritating for passengers Riding into or out of the city to have transfer trains on a long trip. The best schedule is 40 min. Service with express and limited service at certain stops every " 15 " minutes !!!

[@breadmaster1714]

airport every 15 minutes and i am good with plan A

[@zackgro8440]

Radnor pronounced Radner