|
|
| part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center (1253393) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1253393) | |
part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by chuchubob on Mon Oct 14 22:09:35 2013 train 4616 from Atlantic City to Philadelphia approaching Lindenwold station new destination  train 4616 departing Pennsauken Transit Center  The River LINE has a new station at Pennsauken Transit Center that entered service on Monday.       Even before the new station opened, the southbound often had to wait for the northbound to clear the single track, ever since the speed was raised to 65 mph.    train 4623   train 4623 departing Lindenwold for Atlantic City 
|
|
|
| (1253396) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Oct 14 22:16:41 2013, in response to part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by chuchubob on Mon Oct 14 22:09:35 2013. Kick ass. Comet V's taking over the line. |
|
|
| (1253398) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 14 22:19:04 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Oct 14 22:16:41 2013. Why can't it be MLVs with more frequent service, one wonders. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1253402) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Oct 14 22:37:17 2013, in response to part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by chuchubob on Mon Oct 14 22:09:35 2013. why the single track on the RIVERLINE through this station?Nice pics.. |
|
|
| (1253404) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by chuchubob on Mon Oct 14 22:52:40 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Edwards! on Mon Oct 14 22:37:17 2013. cost minimization |
|
|
| (1253407) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Mon Oct 14 23:35:18 2013, in response to part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by chuchubob on Mon Oct 14 22:09:35 2013. Nice pictures! Love those fancy lamps.=-w-= |
|
|
| (1253425) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Tue Oct 15 04:24:03 2013, in response to part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by chuchubob on Mon Oct 14 22:09:35 2013. it is to drool.chud1. :).... |
|
|
| (1253432) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Tue Oct 15 07:20:24 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by chud1 on Tue Oct 15 04:24:03 2013. New Transfer Station |
|
|
| (1253434) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Oct 15 08:07:22 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Oct 14 22:16:41 2013. They seem to have taken over Hoboken Div trains as well, with a few others as stragglers. |
|
|
| (1253439) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Oct 15 09:00:04 2013, in response to part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by chuchubob on Mon Oct 14 22:09:35 2013. What's going on with the old CP-JERSEY? |
|
|
| (1253441) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Oct 15 09:00:38 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by chuchubob on Mon Oct 14 22:52:40 2013. Wasn't that part of the Bordentowne Sec always single track? |
|
|
| (1253451) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by chuchubob on Tue Oct 15 09:13:08 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Oct 15 09:00:04 2013. The station was built with the platforms nearly a foot higher than the floor level of the coaches. The southbound track was raised prior to the station opening. I assume the Conrail MOW is smoothing out the transition between the station level and the level coming off the bridge.The northbound track still needs to be raised. My northbound train made the station stop on the southbound track. People who arrived on the two previous northbound trains said the crews nearly soiled themselves when they saw the huge step up from the train to the platform. By the time of the third train's arrival, the dispatcher apparently had been made aware of the fiasco and routed northbound trains to the southbound platform. |
|
|
| (1253476) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 15 13:17:48 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Oct 15 09:00:38 2013. Yes. The entire line varies between one and two tracks. |
|
|
| (1253480) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Oct 15 14:14:52 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by chuchubob on Mon Oct 14 22:52:40 2013. Hard to see what was minimized at $31 million per mile. |
|
|
| (1253481) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 15 14:28:41 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 14 22:19:04 2013. They'd be wasted down there. I'm down with the more frequent service. Like OP hourly headways, like a proper commuter line. |
|
|
| (1253489) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by chuchubob on Tue Oct 15 14:58:15 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Oct 15 14:14:52 2013. Not if you look. Much double track was reduced to single track.Construction cost was $13 million per mile (450 mil/34 miles). That included the cost of a dozen studies over the previous 25 years. The billion dollar figure was for a ten-year DBOM. The ten years of operation and maintenance wasn't free. But you knew that, of course. You're just being a jerk. |
|
|
| (1253491) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Oct 15 15:05:32 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by chuchubob on Tue Oct 15 14:58:15 2013. It is unfortunate that it was alwyas the 10 year operating/maintenance number that was thrown in so as to be called the "billion dollar light rail line". |
|
|
| (1253493) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Oct 15 15:07:00 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 15 14:28:41 2013. Like C-3's on some low-density LIRR diesel runs, but that is all they've got. |
|
|
| (1253494) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by chuchubob on Tue Oct 15 15:08:09 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by chuchubob on Tue Oct 15 09:13:08 2013. The track 2 (northbound) platform is now closed, presumably until the track is raised.
|
|
|
| (1253500) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Oct 15 15:16:47 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by chuchubob on Tue Oct 15 15:08:09 2013. Why was the platform made a foot too high to start with for the track as it was ? |
|
|
| (1253531) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by chuchubob on Tue Oct 15 18:06:25 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Joe V on Tue Oct 15 15:16:47 2013. Beats me! |
|
|
| (1253545) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Tue Oct 15 20:19:21 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by chuchubob on Tue Oct 15 14:58:15 2013. Even say $10 million a mile sounds huge for the 5000 daily round trip riders. A $1 billion DBOM for 10 years is $400,000 per workday or $80 per person per day. It's hard to call that economical transportation.Bill |
|
|
| (1253551) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 15 21:18:14 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Bill West on Tue Oct 15 20:19:21 2013. As Mr. Vogel pointed out the $1 billion invested in the Riverline was neither entirely for capital or O&M costs. It was split between the capital and operational costs with a roughly 60/40 ratio. You wouldn't charge capital expenses against the daily operating costs (certainly we don't do that to highways, airports, or anything else), so you'd divide out the $400 million in O&M costs to reach $160,000 per work day. Except that the line operates every day of the week, not just weekdays, so that's makes it more like $110,000 per day.Working from the average numbers provided by NJT the route carries around 1,567,800 per year. That means the cost per passenger per day works out to $25. That's still high, even though it's nearly a quarter your figure. |
|
|
| (1253585) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Wed Oct 16 01:15:30 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 15 21:18:14 2013. 1. Yes transport politicos have separated capital from O&M but they are only deceiving themselves. If the outfit you put your 401k into used their revenue over O&M to tell you their profits would you be impressed when you retired and found out that they hadn't earned enough to repay the capital? In a private outfit this would result in the attorney general filing criminal charges for fraudulent accounting. It's no less dishonest to the public when politicos do it.Our local politicos can't tell the public their $3 bus ride costs $8 but they readily sneak the other $5 out of everybody's back pocket. Do you think the false costs help our economic decision making? 2. Yes the line runs 7 days but the weekend trips are just bonus service received by the weekday users, for which the fares probably don't even cover the extra O&M. The work week load sets the total system cost and is better at revealing the number of distinct citizens served on a recurring basis. Bill |
|
|
| (1253604) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 16 08:28:39 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Bill West on Wed Oct 16 01:15:30 2013. Since it is treated as a bus line with regard to fares and rail pass holders can ride for free, how do they credit that revenue to the R-L, or don't they ?There should have been some pruning of the 409 bus. It has not been touched all the while the R-L has been open. I'd kill it north of Burlington, and run a 600-series Mercer bus every 1 or 2 hours for the local sprawl between Trenton and Bordentown. |
|
|
| (1253612) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 16 09:03:42 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 16 08:28:39 2013. There should have been some pruning of the 409 busWhy, if people are riding it and it's typically reliable? The purpose of public transit is not to force people from one mode onto another. You can't split bus routes for free either. |
|
|
| (1253613) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 16 09:12:34 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 16 09:03:42 2013. When a rail line comes into being, slower, infrequent, and less popular bus service is generally turned into feeders. The 409 is not well used north of Burlington and runs every 2 hours, and that was true before there was a R-L. |
|
|
| (1253616) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by rockparkman on Wed Oct 16 09:31:09 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 16 09:03:42 2013. A true railfan sees bus routes as either conversion opportunities or feeder routes for rail transit. |
|
|
| (1253744) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Oct 16 20:57:54 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by Bill West on Wed Oct 16 01:15:30 2013. Yes transport politicos have separated capital from O&M but they are only deceiving themselves.They're using the same accounting used for all other modes. If you want to start including capital expenditures in the "operating" costs of highways, airports, and other modes then mass transit, even more marginal lines like the Riverline, will start looking downright economical. Transit just doesn't get unfettered access to the general taxpayer fund when their own dedicated streams start drying up as highway and air transport networks do. I'm not going to judge whether it's right or wrong, but that's the way they've chosen to do their accounting. Incidentally, even if we take your full cost accounting model then you must include the fact that the line will not be reconstructed every ten years. They may go for another $40 million/yr operating contract, but the investment in the fixed infrastructure (the capital cost) will not be expended. Thus you need to amortize the capital cost separately over the 30-40 year lifetime of the line before analyzing the O&M costs. Our local politicos can't tell the public their $3 bus ride costs $8 but they readily sneak the other $5 out of everybody's back pocket. Do you think the false costs help our economic decision making? They tell us the highways are "free" while "sneaking" money from every pocket they can find, so how about we address that problem orders of magnitude larger than anything being discussed here before dealing the comparatively tiny problem of transit? 2. Yes the line runs 7 days but the weekend trips are just bonus service received by the weekday users, for which the fares probably don't even cover the extra O&M. The work week load sets the total system cost and is better at revealing the number of distinct citizens served on a recurring basis. That's an abjectly ignorant statement. First of all, you don't get to pick and choose which statistics you want to use arbitrarily. Secondly, other than the ACL's nearly 1:1 ratio (for fairly obvious reasons) the Riverline has one of the largest fractions of weekday to weekend ridership in the NJT system. What you say may be true of the RVL or PVL, with Saturday and Sunday carrying 10-25% of the line's weekday ridership, but the Riverline carries 60% of its weekday ridership on Saturdays and tops 50% on Sundays. Users of the Riverline clearly do not fit into the mold of 9-5 weekday commuters. Incidentally they run around 70% the service they provide on a weekday during the Saturday schedule, so their Saturday service certainly loses little in terms of marginal costs per passenger to weekday service. |
|
|
| (1253759) | |
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Thu Oct 17 00:58:12 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by WillD on Wed Oct 16 20:57:54 2013. They're using the same accounting used for all other modes - Yes, I was referring to all modes.that's the way they've chosen - Just means that their figures are meaningless, use sound figuring. full cost accounting - Yes the $80 daily figure would be trimmed a bit, but the River Line is still too costly. how about we address that problem - I would gladly see total highway and airport costs, including surrounding impacts put on an "honest" basis. More so as doing that for all transport would resolve which ones the riders will fully pay for. As a generality, the "the other guy is doing it" fallacy is not going to be one that leads to a good position. That's an abjectly ignorant statement - and you would actually make an un-ignorant, meaningful difference to the finding that providing each citizen with weekly transportation to his workplace costs in nieghbourhood of $80 times 5 days? The system was not built because of the weekend business and the weekend figures seem unlikely to change how much subsidy the project needed to provide its core weekday service. I recollect a co-worker writing out a state of the art, high tech proposal. Then he wrote "reality check" and filled out what turned out to be a more meaningful assessment of the idea. I think that's what River Line needed. Bill |
|
|
