DVARP Pushing for Bathrooms and Trash Cans on SEPTA Regional Rail Trains

[PhilaCap]

bathrooms on the train sounds pretty gross to me.

[raider.adam]

Silverliner III's came with a cabinet meant for a bathroom. Said cabinet was eventually converted to a luggage rack on most SIII's.

Bathrooms would cost seats. Which is more valuable?

Sounds like bathrooms would cost luggage space.

I can always wait for a WiFi connection. Sometimes, I can't wait to go.

Go before you get on the train. I agree that wifi would be more valuable to me.

Of course the reality is some people have medical issues (not saying that is Sandy). Perhaps a good compromise solution is to achieve a certain percentage of a train having a car with a bathroom. Like 1 out of every 5 cars should have a bathroom. Enough facility available to handle emergencies and a level of convenience without the same overhead of a bathroom in every car.

[Andy Sharpe]

I think Adam raises a great compromise. I don't see why SEPTA would need more than one bathroom per train. The problem is, conductors might try to close the car with the bathroom. There would need to be a safeguard against this. Also, for every train of three or more cars, crews would have to make sure there was a bathroom car in the consist. Perhaps certain shorter distance lines could get a waiver from this.

Of course the reality is some people have medical issues (not saying that is Sandy). Perhaps a good compromise solution is to achieve a certain percentage of a train having a car with a bathroom. Like 1 out of every 5 cars should have a bathroom. Enough facility available to handle emergencies and a level of convenience without the same overhead of a bathroom in every car.

[eldondre]

I think Adam raises a great compromise. I don't see why SEPTA would need more than one bathroom per train. The problem is, conductors might try to close the car with the bathroom. There would need to be a safeguard against this. Also, for every train of three or more cars, crews would have to make sure there was a bathroom car in the consist. Perhaps certain shorter distance lines could get a waiver from this.

it would create headaches since you'd no longer be able to swap cars out as needed. the issue is twofold, closed stations and no stations. perhaps the standard could be one car per train for rides over an hour since the number of cars is probably less of a factor than the length of the trip. SEPTA could then weigh the cost of providing bathrooms against the cost of providing faster sesrvice.

[raider.adam]

I think Adam raises a great compromise. I don't see why SEPTA would need more than one bathroom per train. The problem is, conductors might try to close the car with the bathroom. There would need to be a safeguard against this. Also, for every train of three or more cars, crews would have to make sure there was a bathroom car in the consist. Perhaps certain shorter distance lines could get a waiver from this.

it would create headaches since you'd no longer be able to swap cars out as needed. the issue is twofold, closed stations and no stations. perhaps the standard could be one car per train for rides over an hour since the number of cars is probably less of a factor than the length of the trip. SEPTA could then weigh the cost of providing bathrooms against the cost of providing faster sesrvice.

Yeah, SEPTA would have to figure out some logistics and I know almost nothing about the logistics of putting together a train set. The easy thing that would come to my mind though would be to make it where the first care behind the engineer is a car with a bathroom. That way you have at least one bathroom available, same location on the train (first car), next to the cab if the engineer needs to use it for an emergency at a stop and I would think keep down the burden of car swap outs in a set down to a minimum.

Again, that could be completely contradictory to how the logistics work. I don't know.

[Sean]

I think Adam raises a great compromise. I don't see why SEPTA would need more than one bathroom per train. The problem is, conductors might try to close the car with the bathroom. There would need to be a safeguard against this. Also, for every train of three or more cars, crews would have to make sure there was a bathroom car in the consist. Perhaps certain shorter distance lines could get a waiver from this.

I have ridden on other rail roads (LIRR) where the trains are made up of married pairs of cars (a married pair is two cars that are joined together semi-permanently) and one car of each married pair has a bathroom. The regional rail here doesn’t work that way so it isn’t applicable, but it does give consistency to where bathrooms are located and how to find them.

[radiocolin]

Bathrooms cost money and require additional resources for cleaning as well as waste emptying, and those things also cost money. Money that is better spent elsewhere.

[OffenseTaken]

Bathrooms cost money and require additional resources for cleaning as well as waste emptying, and those things also cost money. Money that is better spent elsewhere.

Andy Sharpe, do you have a rough estimate of how much this would cost? I have a feeling this issue is going to keep coming up, so this would be a good time to allay those concerns.

If the choice were between on-board toilets and shorter headways, I think we all know what we would pick, but maybe it's silly to think it's either/or.

[cewillm]

I'd also rather see Wifi+trash receptacles rather than bathrooms. I understand the pain of R5 riders, and I know that medical issues can be a huge hassle and source of embarrassment for a very limited set of riders. If you are grossed out, stop reading now. My father is in a losing long-term battle with prostate cancer. For the past year he has been unable to go more than an hour or so without needing a bathroom, and even for most of my youth he needed more "potty breaks" than most reasonable adults should. So I completely understand and commend your attempts to accommodate passengers of all disabilities, Andy. But as heartless as it sounds, there's not a good rationale for bathrooms when your targeted users are those who suffer through a long R5 ride (who are unlucky and will have to deal with it) and those with legitimate incontinence issues (who should have access to CCT Connect or other paratransit services).

[cewillm]

Andy Sharpe, do you have a rough estimate of how much this would cost? I have a feeling this issue is going to keep coming up, so this would be a good time to allay those concerns.

If the choice were between on-board toilets and shorter headways, I think we all know what we would pick, but maybe it's silly to think it's either/or.

It's a no-brainer. Easy compromise. If you have better stations with bathrooms and shorter headways, it's not quite so inconvenient to get off, take care of business, and hop back on the next train. But it just happens that the long R5 lines don't seem to have functional stations at the more extreme endpoints, no?

[Tro]

The next batch of cars won't be coming in decades as the silverliner IV's will reach the age of the current silverliner II's and III's in about 7-8 years

[Tro]

I'd also rather see Wifi+trash receptacles rather than bathrooms. I understand the pain of R5 riders, and I know that medical issues can be a huge hassle and source of embarrassment for a very limited set of riders. If you are grossed out, stop reading now. My father is in a losing long-term battle with prostate cancer. For the past year he has been unable to go more than an hour or so without needing a bathroom, and even for most of my youth he needed more "potty breaks" than most reasonable adults should. So I completely understand and commend your attempts to accommodate passengers of all disabilities, Andy. But as heartless as it sounds, there's not a good rationale for bathrooms when your targeted users are those who suffer through a long R5 ride (who are unlucky and will have to deal with it) and those with legitimate incontinence issues (who should have access to CCT Connect or other paratransit services).

It seems like everyone has the misconception of R5 is like the only long line on SEPTA but that is untrue
Doylestown to Center city takes over an hour
Newark to Center City takes over an hour
Trenton to Center City takes over an hour
West Trenton to Center City takes over an hour

[Garret]

It seems like everyone has the misconception of R5 is like the only long line on SEPTA but that is untrue
Doylestown to Center city takes over an hour
Newark to Center City takes over an hour
Trenton to Center City takes over an hour
West Trenton to Center City takes over an hour

But how many people take those lines all the way to the end? I used to take the D-town line between Colmar and CC fairly often, and the train was half-emptied by the time we got past Fort Washington and Ambler. It was practically deserted once we got past Lansdale. I would guess those other lines you mentioned have the same story.

[billy ross]

It seems like everyone has the misconception of R5 is like the only long line on SEPTA but that is untrue
Doylestown to Center city takes over an hour
Newark to Center City takes over an hour
Trenton to Center City takes over an hour
West Trenton to Center City takes over an hour

50 minutes 30th Street to Trenton. Not terrible. There are bathrooms at 30th Street. There are bathrooms at Trenton. If you experience an urgency emergency during the 50 minute rite you can get off at Torresdale and go to the Three Monkeys or Glen Foerd; most stops have businesses nearby which have restrooms which you could use. This isn't an airplane or a boat we're talking about. You can get off if you need to before you reach your destination in the event of emergency.

Sounds like bathrooms would cost luggage space.

Only because those cars were configured for rest rooms. Had they been configured without provision for rest rooms the cars would have had more seats, ceteris paribus.

[MarketStEl]

50 minutes 30th Street to Trenton. Not terrible. There are bathrooms at 30th Street. There are bathrooms at Trenton. If you experience an urgency emergency during the 50 minute rite you can get off at Torresdale and go to the Three Monkeys or Glen Foerd; most stops have businesses nearby which have restrooms which you could use. This isn't an airplane or a boat we're talking about. You can get off if you need to before you reach your destination in the event of emergency.

Trouble is, the train won't wait for you while you go. Except at peak hours, that means waits of at least 30 minutes for the next train on most of the system. And will the conductor of the next train honor your ticket if you aren't a pass holder?

I don't understand why some sort of modest provision for restrooms on Regional Rail trains is being treated as though it's a major imposition on SEPTA by so many here. Convenience store restrooms will probably get as much use, proportionally speaking, as these, and somehow the owners of those have no problem including them in their store designs. (Or at least Wawa doesn't.)

Edited to add: FTR, I'm not arguing out of personal interest, for I have a very sturdy bladder and can hold my liquids for the duration of a 50- to 55-minute train ride. I realize, however, that not everyone is so fortunate, and it's only charitable to make some provision for their possible needs.

[MarketStEl]

But how many people take those lines all the way to the end? I used to take the D-town line between Colmar and CC fairly often, and the train was half-emptied by the time we got past Fort Washington and Ambler. It was practically deserted once we got past Lansdale. I would guess those other lines you mentioned have the same story.

The R2 Newark and R7 Trenton lines are exceptions to your rule. The former provides commuter service to downtown Wilmington, which is why Delaware pays for it; there is significant ridership southbound from Claymont to Wilmington, and probably northbound from Newark and Churchmans Crossing to Wilmington. The latter, of course, is used by riders bound for points in New Jersey and New York City from Philadelphia and intermediate points to Trenton.

[Garret]

The R2 Newark and R7 Trenton lines are exceptions to your rule. The former provides commuter service to downtown Wilmington, which is why Delaware pays for it; there is significant ridership southbound from Claymont to Wilmington, and probably northbound from Newark and Churchmans Crossing to Wilmington. The latter, of course, is used by riders bound for points in New Jersey and New York City from Philadelphia and intermediate points to Trenton.

Yes, but on those journeys you have the option of using bathroom-equipped Amtrak for at least some of the way. The conundrum of regional rail is that at the outer edges it is almost inter-city service. Then in the inner core it serves stations that would be served by rapid transit in a perfect world.

[eldondre]

The R2 Newark and R7 Trenton lines are exceptions to your rule. The former provides commuter service to downtown Wilmington, which is why Delaware pays for it; there is significant ridership southbound from Claymont to Wilmington, and probably northbound from Newark and Churchmans Crossing to Wilmington. The latter, of course, is used by riders bound for points in New Jersey and New York City from Philadelphia and intermediate points to Trenton.

no Delaware pays to be connected to Philadelphia not to run people to Wilmington per se.

[billy ross]

Trouble is, the train won't wait for you while you go. Except at peak hours, that means waits of at least 30 minutes for the next train on most of the system. And will the conductor of the next train honor your ticket if you aren't a pass holder?

I don't understand why some sort of modest provision for restrooms on Regional Rail trains is being treated as though it's a major imposition on SEPTA by so many here. Convenience store restrooms will probably get as much use, proportionally speaking, as these, and somehow the owners of those have no problem including them in their store designs. (Or at least Wawa doesn't.)

Edited to add: FTR, I'm not arguing out of personal interest, for I have a very sturdy bladder and can hold my liquids for the duration of a 50- to 55-minute train ride. I realize, however, that not everyone is so fortunate, and it's only charitable to make some provision for their possible needs.

If it's that much of an emergency, you aren't going to be done with the bathroom instantly. I know in my case when I've really got to go it takes me a while to get done with it. Thus I question your assumption regarding the amount of time wasted. In addition, I regularly do get off the train for various reasons then get back onto the train, and I come up with all kinds of stories as to why I did it to avoid getting double charged, and the conductors never give me a hard time. Usually I plead cluelessness regarding the system, which they're all to ready to buy. A bathroom emergency isn't a story I've tried yet, but that's a great idea for the next time I want to explore a place.

[NickFromGtown]

Honestly, I once considered joining the DVARP since I love all modes of rail transit and I support their expansion. With all due respect, I find this request to undermine the legitimacy and purpose of the DVARP.

I feel like I could write about this for a very long time, but long story short, these are the things that are important to affecting ridership of rail transportation in and around Philadelphia:

• Frequency of trains, especially during off-peak times
• High-level platforms
• Length of time to Center City
• Overcrowding of cars
• Late trains
• Getting the Swampoodle Connection built

I believe that DVARP once argued for a ticketing system on the basis of a "different class" of individual riding Regional Rail versus other means of transportation. I remember reading that and immediately thinking that the DVARP is out of touch just for using that kind of rhetoric. Now, after reading this latest push, that view is reinforced, although it now extends to policy beyond necessary soft skills. Especially with the bathrooms portion of this, so many logistical issues and added costs are raised. These things are total luxuries when one considers what needs to be done in our rail system.