New rail stations, tunnel to airport eyed for Philadelphia

[raider.adam]

New rail stations, tunnel to airport eyed for Philadelphia

Torn about the idea.

For starters, if they say $3 billion, it will probably be $5 billion and even more when you factor in costs 10 years from now.

Second, I would be curious to see a comparison of what else could be done for the money and the time savings. They project $3 billion to save 30 minutes. What would be the cost to do upgrades that shave only 15 minutes? Amtrak is already faster than driving from Philadelphia to NYC. How much extra time makes a difference in that stretch?

Third, I am curious why you would do the new station in Market East and not west of City Hall in the business district by Suburban Station.

Fourth, how important is Amtrak to the airport? We already do have regional rail. Can the airport handle any significant increase in volume if it turned into a larger international hub?

Fifth, 30th St. is not the outlier from Center City like it was 20 years ago and is only going to be even more significant as Penn and other developers keep ramping up development around it. Is the solution to move the Amtrak station to Center City or is the better and cheaper solution to make a much better connection between 30th St and the subway? (Currently you have to walk outside through traffic and under the street to get to it.)

On the reverse argument, I can understand the desire to dump Amtrak travelers right next to the Convention Center and the Historic District.

[Naveen]

New rail stations, tunnel to airport eyed for Philadelphia

Torn about the idea.

For starters, if they say $3 billion, it will probably be $5 billion and even more when you factor in costs 10 years from now.

Yep. At least $5 billion.

Second, I would be curious to see a comparison of what else could be done for the money and the time savings. They project $3 billion to save 30 minutes. What would be the cost to do upgrades that shave only 15 minutes? Amtrak is already faster than driving from Philadelphia to NYC. How much extra time makes a difference in that stretch?

Right. I agree in principle, but the question is this: will 15 minutes less travel time garner enough new riders to justify even the reduced cost? I think it's one of those perception-based things. A traveler who sees a 15 minute difference in ride time may not think it's much value added. But 30 minutes certainly is, and could get travelers and businesses to consider the train more than 15 minutes ever could.

Third, I am curious why you would do the new station in Market East and not west of City Hall in the business district by Suburban Station.

Maybe eldondre can chime in, but from reading the article, it seems to me the reason may be the "straight line" in the tracks they're looking for. Or perhaps it's easier for some other reason?...Unless they're trying to tie a new train station into Market East Transformation™.

Fourth, how important is Amtrak to the airport? We already do have regional rail. Can the airport handle any significant increase in volume if it turned into a larger international hub?

But imagine getting off at PHL, and then being able to take a bullet train to NYC or DC directly. It could make PHL more of an option for people looking to go to those destinations (heck, to go from Midtown Manhattan to JFK takes 45 to 60 minutes. I doubt this would be a big chunk of the ridership, but I could see some New Yorkers (especially if they're familiar with Philly) actually taking an Amtrak down to PHL...or the reverse, people flying in to PHL then bullet-training it to NYP.)

But as you say: can PHL handle all of that? Personally, if that calls for more PHL expansion then I'm all for it. Better to be busy than not.

Fifth, 30th St. is not the outlier from Center City like it was 20 years ago and is only going to be even more significant as Penn and other developers keep ramping up development around it. Is the solution to move the Amtrak station to Center City or is the better and cheaper solution to make a much better connection between 30th St and the subway? (Currently you have to walk outside through traffic and under the street to get to it.)

Totally agree on that subway connection. Plus, when descending into the subway from street, you have to run the gauntlet of the characters hanging around that stairwell. Ugh.

On the reverse argument, I can understand the desire to dump Amtrak travelers right next to the Convention Center and the Historic District.

If all of Bart Blatstein's dreams come true, I'm sure he'll want it there as well.

[eldondre]

amtrak is more important to the airport than the airport to amtrak in this case. there are other way to get to the airport and on to DC though, you could use the CSX alignment that parallels the nec and runs right by the airport. a straight line on the map is one thing but south philadelphia is going to have have water table issues, among other things. it's not like south philly is empty like parts of kensington either.
the el stop: some of this is difficult to change given the grade (can't move the station east) and the rail lines (which sit between the el station and 30th st at the concourse level). I'd also argue that a connection to the northwest needs to be made. there's no good way to 30th st from the parkway, museum, and north philly..nor to PATCO.
Naveen-ridership is not a problem between philadelphia and nyp. amtrak could probably double its ridership between the two cities at today's speeds if it wanted to do so. the fastest acela does the run between 30th and nyp in 65 minutes (60 minutes to north philly). simply removing slow spots would bring it under an hour. I'd argue that simply offering more trains than just the acela with a sub 60 minute run would do plenty for ridership, revenue, etc.

[Naveen]

Naveen-ridership is not a problem between philadelphia and nyp. amtrak could probably double its ridership between the two cities at today's speeds if it wanted to do so. the fastest acela does the run between 30th and nyp in 65 minutes (60 minutes to north philly). simply removing slow spots would bring it under an hour. I'd argue that simply offering more trains than just the acela with a sub 60 minute run would do plenty for ridership, revenue, etc.

Concur. If they could make an under 60 minute ride more affordable (though still more than regular speed), I'm sure a lot of us would pay. It's the jacked up acela rates that keep most of us off, I think.

[Sailaway]

Jeez, that they're even CONSIDERING this is insane. $3b for a 15 minute savings? No, thanks, not even for 1/10th the price.

[raider.adam]

Right. I agree in principle, but the question is this: will 15 minutes less travel time garner enough new riders to justify even the reduced cost? I think it's one of those perception-based things. A traveler who sees a 15 minute difference in ride time may not think it's much value added. But 30 minutes certainly is, and could get travelers and businesses to consider the train more than 15 minutes ever could.

I just don't see it. It takes at least an hour and a half to get to the Lincoln Tunnel by car if you are lucky. It can take another 30-45 minutes to get through the Tunnel to downtown Manhattan at least. The current time for Amtrak blows the pants off driving by car (and the huge road rage). Sure, a 30 minute trip vs an hour or 45 minutes is better for advertising, but is it several billion worth it?

When taking Amtrak to NYP, it isn't the speed that is the deterrent, but the cost and probably to a degree the wait times (you can save 15 minutes off a trip by just running more trains too).

Maybe eldondre can chime in, but from reading the article, it seems to me the reason may be the "straight line" in the tracks they're looking for. Or perhaps it's easier for some other reason?...Unless they're trying to tie a new train station into Market East Transformation™.

Yeah, sounds like a chunk of the reason is for "economic development". So to hope it helps development in low rise Market East, they take away an added incentive for building in skyscraper market west.

But imagine getting off at PHL, and then being able to take a bullet train to NYC or DC directly. It could make PHL more of an option for people looking to go to those destinations (heck, to go from Midtown Manhattan to JFK takes 45 to 60 minutes. I doubt this would be a big chunk of the ridership, but I could see some New Yorkers (especially if they're familiar with Philly) actually taking an Amtrak down to PHL...or the reverse, people flying in to PHL then bullet-training it to NYP.)

I also don't see it. Do you really think someone is going to fly from Chicago to PHL to then take a train to NY or Boston? That's also assuming your flight times match up with your train times. And waiting for luggage before you get on the train. Even at a 30 minute train from Philly, I would still assume it will be cheaper and more convenient to just fly straight to NY.

The only advantage I would see would be international, like I mentioned, since there would be more competition with that.

But as you say: can PHL handle all of that? Personally, if that calls for more PHL expansion then I'm all for it. Better to be busy than not.

But that is my question. How much more expansion can PHL do? I am not being rhetorical. I don't know and would be curious to know.

Totally agree on that subway connection. Plus, when descending into the subway from street, you have to run the gauntlet of the characters hanging around that stairwell. Ugh.

Yeah. It would be like getting into Penn Station and having to go outside and cross 34th to get on a subway. A smooth transition to the blue line would likely do wonders for the rider's travel experience.

If all of Bart Blatstein's dreams come true, I'm sure he'll want it there as well.

He'll want the stop to be under the Inquirer Building.

[raider.adam]

Concur. If they could make an under 60 minute ride more affordable (though still more than regular speed), I'm sure a lot of us would pay. It's the jacked up acela rates that keep most of us off, I think.

Acela sells out a lot of its trips to NYP from Philly. Yes the price keeps most people off of Acela, but they aren't having problems filling the seats at that price either. And for those that haven't checked lately, standard Amtrak ticket prices aren't that cheap either unless you get them well in advance (buying a train ticket for the next day on the subsidized Keystone can run you over $70 one way. Goes down to $50 with two week notice. Also referring to rush hour rates).

Which I think raises a very important point to mention. High speed rail between say NYP and Philly is not going to be priced for the average person. It will be priced for people that would be using it instead of flying, say going to Boston, but other than that, it is still likely going to be niche ridership.

[phillyaggie]

"There's no city on the corridor that stands to gain as much from high-speed rail as Philadelphia."

Read more: New rail stations, tunnel to airport eyed for Philadelphia
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

Indeed!

we better get this right...

[eldondre]

"There's no city on the corridor that stands to gain as much from high-speed rail as Philadelphia."
Indeed!we better get this right...

and Philadelphia suffers the most from today's pricing policies. no other city pays as much per mile as Philadelphians for fares to ny, they are the highest in the amtrak system.

When taking Amtrak to NYP, it isn't the speed that is the deterrent, but the cost and probably to a degree the wait times (you can save 15 minutes off a trip by just running more trains too).

they'll need more tunnel capacity for that as well.

I also don't see it. Do you really think someone is going to fly from Chicago to PHL to then take a train to NY or Boston? That's also assuming your flight times match up with your train times. And waiting for luggage before you get on the train. Even at a 30 minute train from Philly, I would still assume it will be cheaper and more convenient to just fly straight to NY.

I don't agree with this assumption. you're going to have to transfer anyway from jfk, at 37 minutes it wouldn't be much longer to get to midtown from philly as from jfk. waiting for luggage is moot since you'd do that in either scenario. perhaps I see it different because I've done this in other countries. I wouldn't be surprised if this is already happening with some people getting better fares to philly form europe and using buses/trains to get to ny or dc.

He'll want the stop to be under the Inquirer Building.

not such a crazy idea considering it sits atop an abandoned rail line.

[Lakey]

Acela sells out a lot of its trips to NYP from Philly. Yes the price keeps most people off of Acela, but they aren't having problems filling the seats at that price either. And for those that haven't checked lately, standard Amtrak ticket prices aren't that cheap either unless you get them well in advance (buying a train ticket for the next day on the subsidized Keystone can run you over $70 one way. Goes down to $50 with two week notice. Also referring to rush hour rates).

Which I think raises a very important point to mention. High speed rail between say NYP and Philly is not going to be priced for the average person. It will be priced for people that would be using it instead of flying, say going to Boston, but other than that, it is still likely going to be niche ridership.

Exactly. Acela pricing is simply a profit maximization strategy, and a sensible one at that. As you mentioned Amtrak doesn't have difficulty filling Acela seats and there isn't capacity on the NEC to significantly expand Acela service currently. So they might was well make as much incremental profit per passenger as the market will bear. IIRC they make about $40/passenger in profit on Acela seats.

This tunnel plan is the center city commuter tunnel on steroids with a heroin chaser. It's hardly an efficient use of limited funds and political capital. It took 12 wasted years and Ford cutting a deal and overruling his transportation department to the CCCT funded. I'm at a loss to think of what it would take to get this thing funded even at the ridiculously underestimated number that they are using. I'd like to have faster, more reliable service on the NEC in my lifetime. This isn't the way to get there.

[raider.adam]

I don't agree with this assumption. you're going to have to transfer anyway from jfk, at 37 minutes it wouldn't be much longer to get to midtown from philly as from jfk. waiting for luggage is moot since you'd do that in either scenario. perhaps I see it different because I've done this in other countries. I wouldn't be surprised if this is already happening with some people getting better fares to philly form europe and using buses/trains to get to ny or dc.

I specifically treated international and domestic as separate patterns. I did say I could see the possibility of international flights doing it. It's the domestic I don't see doing it all that much. I think it is a much bigger assumption that domestic fliers (of any significant number to justify the routing cost) would do it than if domestic fliers won't.

I just don't see people flying from Chicago to Philadelphia and then hopping on a train to get to Boston. Or paying $400 round trip to fly from MDW to PHL and paying another $300 round trip to get to NYP when you could just pay $400 to $500 to fly right to NY.

That's a tough scenario to sell that it will happen at large numbers.

[eldondre]

Acela sells out a lot of its trips to NYP from Philly. Yes the price keeps most people off of Acela, but they aren't having problems filling the seats at that price either. And for those that haven't checked lately, standard Amtrak ticket prices aren't that cheap either unless you get them well in advance (buying a train ticket for the next day on the subsidized Keystone can run you over $70 one way. Goes down to $50 with two week notice. Also referring to rush hour rates).Which I think raises a very important point to mention. High speed rail between say NYP and Philly is not going to be priced for the average person. It will be priced for people that would be using it instead of flying, say going to Boston, but other than that, it is still likely going to be niche ridership.

I recently looked at tickets to boston and the acela cost over 4 times more than the regional. Amtrak may not have problems filling the seats they have but the number of seats isn't fixed (except in the short term). the acela power cars were mean to haul ten coaches...and there's no reason a train couldn't be even longer than that. each eurostar train can handle over 700 people. the Keystone is not subsidized between Philadelpha and NYP. I'd also point out that Amtrak trains aren't full either, at least not always, so something is off with their pricing.

Exactly. Acela pricing is simply a profit maximization strategy, and a sensible one at that. As you mentioned Amtrak doesn't have difficulty filling Acela seats and there isn't capacity on the NEC to significantly expand Acela service currently. So they might was well make as much incremental profit per passenger as the market will bear. IIRC they make about $40/passenger in profit on Acela seats.

there's no reason that Keystone trains couldn't run using higher speed equipment than it does today....regionals as well. Amtrak could move a lot more people even using the existing capacity today (penn station itself notwithstanding). adding 4 coaches to a train decreases the avg cost, thus the revenue necessary to turn a profit on a per seat basis is lowered. Amtrak's pricing for the Acela makes sense given the current scenario but that scenario is not fixed. Amtrak coudl order more new equipment, they could have ordered longer trains. the reason they are worried that providing higher quality service on other lines would undermine Acela pricing which is monopolistic behavior.

[eldondre]

I specifically treated international and domestic as separate patterns. I did say I could see the possibility of international flights doing it. It's the domestic I don't see doing it all that much. I think it is a much bigger assumption that domestic fliers (of any significant number to justify the routing cost) would do it than if domestic fliers won't.

I just don't see people flying from Chicago to Philadelphia and then hopping on a train to get to Boston. Or paying $400 round trip to fly from MDW to PHL and paying another $300 round trip to get to NYP when you could just pay $400 to $500 to fly right to NY.

That's a tough scenario to sell that it will happen at large numbers.

international is where the money is and probably what Philly needs expanded the most

[BarryG]

This isn't just about philly to NYC, it's about the whole high speed network on the NEC. Think about the time saved on a trip to DC or Boston.

PHL is us airways hub, both domestic and Intl, they could definitely steal air traffic to/from NYC and even DC with a direct rail connection, especially if they bundle the train ticket in like Continental/United does for ewr flights.

[Lakey]

No airline is going to use PHL as a base to try to siphon international business from NY with or without train access. It would be suicide to do so. NY, currently, and always has, had lower avgerage leisure ticket prices for international travel than PHL. NY also has a far higher percentage of paid F seats than PHL. All an airline would be doing is engaging in a price war for low margin leisure travelers without gaining any of the high margin F ticketed fliers who are not going to travel to PHL to get to their international destination. Airlines make bad decisions all the time, but none of them are that clueless.

[raider.adam]

I recently looked at tickets to boston and the acela cost over 4 times more than the regional. Amtrak may not have problems filling the seats they have but the number of seats isn't fixed (except in the short term). the acela power cars were mean to haul ten coaches...and there's no reason a train couldn't be even longer than that. each eurostar train can handle over 700 people. the Keystone is not subsidized between Philadelpha and NYP. I'd also point out that Amtrak trains aren't full either, at least not always, so something is off with their pricing.

Is it subsidized if you get on a stop before Philadelphia? I thought you had said it was subsidized. I remember seeing before that Keystone routes were cheaper than NE Regional. Just a coincidence?

there's no reason that Keystone trains couldn't run using higher speed equipment than it does today....regionals as well. Amtrak could move a lot more people even using the existing capacity today (penn station itself notwithstanding). adding 4 coaches to a train decreases the avg cost, thus the revenue necessary to turn a profit on a per seat basis is lowered. Amtrak's pricing for the Acela makes sense given the current scenario but that scenario is not fixed. Amtrak coudl order more new equipment, they could have ordered longer trains. the reason they are worried that providing higher quality service on other lines would undermine Acela pricing which is monopolistic behavior.

And I think this reinforces the main point of my original comments and questions. How much more could Amtrak really do to increase efficiency before it even considers boring through the center of Philadelphia?

international is where the money is and probably what Philly needs expanded the most

Right and that is why I treated them as two separate points. It still leaves my question out there though of how much more capacity can PHL expand to?

This isn't just about philly to NYC, it's about the whole high speed network on the NEC. Think about the time saved on a trip to DC or Boston.

Correct, but the question is, does $3 billion (at least) get you the best bang for your buck on lowering times and drawing riders?

PHL is us airways hub, both domestic and Intl, they could definitely steal air traffic to/from NYC and even DC with a direct rail connection, especially if they bundle the train ticket in like Continental/United does for ewr flights.

And that is where a lot of that discussion needs to be. Would the investment offset other issues with the PHL-NYC airspace and airport logistics? Would it make sense for a carrier like US Airways to say "we are cutting back the amount of our direct flights to NY and instead sending people to PHL with a rail transfer." Is that worth the extra money us airways would have to pay? Would Amtrak be allowed to make a deal with an airline to give them discount ticket pricing for dedicated business?

That is the stuff that is probably important to talk about in regards to PHL and Amtrak. At the same time, does SEPTA then cancel the R1 with a deal for Amtrak to carry PHL - Market East riders at regional rail rates (on standard Amtrak)?

[Naveen]

I just don't see it. It takes at least an hour and a half to get to the Lincoln Tunnel by car if you are lucky. It can take another 30-45 minutes to get through the Tunnel to downtown Manhattan at least. The current time for Amtrak blows the pants off driving by car (and the huge road rage). Sure, a 30 minute trip vs an hour or 45 minutes is better for advertising, but is it several billion worth it?

But it being better for advertising is the whole point. That's how you build the ridership. It's the psychological difference that will get people to make the transaction. It's why everything is priced at x9.99 instead of whole numbers.

Moreover, there are other considerations than just time and even cost. A car gives you flexibility in a way train service doesn't. So you need that extra incentive to take the train. Even with it already being faster to take the train, it may not be enough to many people, depending on the nature of the trip.

Lots of caveats buried in there, I know. So I'm not saying it will increase ridership or make up the cost. I suppose I'm asking whether nor not it will.

But also, is $3 billion (or even $5 bill) really that much when we consider how much we'll be spending on roads, bridges, and tunnels for the same routes?

When taking Amtrak to NYP, it isn't the speed that is the deterrent, but the cost and probably to a degree the wait times (you can save 15 minutes off a trip by just running more trains too).

Right. Well, they're all factors, speed, cost, and wait times. If we could reduce two of the three, it wouldn't surprise me if we got a lot more people off the road than expected.

As to air travelers, I think Barry nails it.

This isn't just about philly to NYC, it's about the whole high speed network on the NEC. Think about the time saved on a trip to DC or Boston.

PHL is us airways hub, both domestic and Intl, they could definitely steal air traffic to/from NYC and even DC with a direct rail connection, especially if they bundle the train ticket in like Continental/United does for ewr flights.

And while I agree that it would be great for international travelers, there's also the other side of our own continent to consider. While a Chicagoan might not do PHL > NYC airport, someone from San Fran might...especially considering the Virgin expansion into PHL and direct flights. So really, we're looking at the whole Bay Area, which is still growing (I think).

I'd mention L.A., but people in L.A. are like people in New York: There are only two cities in America: L.A. and New York*. I think Angelenos are less likely to come through PHL, but I'd like to be surprised.

*Well, they will acknowledge the existence of a third city, but that's only for weekends of debauchery and blacked out drives/flights back home.

[raider.adam]

But it being better for advertising is the whole point. That's how you build the ridership. It's the psychological difference that will get people to make the transaction. It's why everything is priced at x9.99 instead of whole numbers.

Right, but that is why I asked "is it worth it?". I doubt there is any company losing a billion dollars because they made the price x.99 instead of x+1.13.

Moreover, there are other considerations than just time and even cost. A car gives you flexibility in a way train service doesn't. So you need that extra incentive to take the train. Even with it already being faster to take the train, it may not be enough to many people, depending on the nature of the trip.

Correct, but also remember we are talking about riders that will be paying $300 or more round trip and a location that is over $60 a day to park. Even at 45 minutes to an hour to get to NYP, cab fare or the subway is still a better deal most likely. The people that need to drive while in Manhattan aren't going to take the train no matter how fast it is then. Those really aren't the people you are targeting. The people paying for high speed are likely high salary people commuting, up there for business and will likely be using the subway, taxi or town car once they get there.

Plus, the other thing to probably keep in mind is, it isn't like the vehicular traffic getting into NY is going to be getting any better. It will likely be getting worse. Probably better odds of an increased 15 minute differential is from the time to drive getting longer (and the price of the tunnel constantly raising).

I wouldn't be surprised if the Lincoln Tunnel is one of the biggest reasons for taking Amtrak (god knows it is for me when I have to go up for work - I'll even carry a large box of equipment with me before driving up).

Lots of caveats buried in there, I know. So I'm not saying it will increase ridership or make up the cost. I suppose I'm asking whether nor not it will.

And that is all I am asking as well. Is that the best $3 billion can get you?

But also, is $3 billion (or even $5 bill) really that much when we consider how much we'll be spending on roads, bridges, and tunnels for the same routes?

That is always one of the scariest questions when it comes to public works. That other project over there is $20 billion, so this $1 billion dollars is really nothing.

Right. Well, they're all factors, speed, cost, and wait times. If we could reduce two of the three, it wouldn't surprise me if we got a lot more people off the road than expected.

I agree, but it all circles to cost and what the other alternatives are.

And while I agree that it would be great for international travelers, there's also the other side of our own continent to consider. While a Chicagoan might not do PHL > NYC airport, someone from San Fran might...especially considering the Virgin expansion into PHL and direct flights. So really, we're looking at the whole Bay Area, which is still growing (I think).

I'd mention L.A., but people in L.A. are like people in New York: There are only two cities in America: L.A. and New York*. I think Angelenos are less likely to come through PHL, but I'd like to be surprised.

*Well, they will acknowledge the existence of a third city, but that's only for weekends of debauchery and blacked out drives/flights back home.

The Illinoisan in me bites his thumb at you.

[Lakey]

And that is where a lot of that discussion needs to be. Would the investment offset other issues with the PHL-NYC airspace and airport logistics? Would it make sense for a carrier like US Airways to say "we are cutting back the amount of our direct flights to NY and instead sending people to PHL with a rail transfer." Is that worth the extra money us airways would have to pay? Would Amtrak be allowed to make a deal with an airline to give them discount ticket pricing for dedicated business?

That is the stuff that is probably important to talk about in regards to PHL and Amtrak. At the same time, does SEPTA then cancel the R1 with a deal for Amtrak to carry PHL - Market East riders at regional rail rates (on standard Amtrak)?

Amtrak has already won this battle and the airlines have cut back the number of PHL - WAS and PHL - NYC flights back considerably over the past decade or so. Amtrak is by a large margin the the dominant carrier between PHL - NY and PHL - WAS. They also have 75% market share NY - WAS. And they did this without building a multi-billion dollar tunnel to serve PHL.

[TLP]

Northeast Corridor HSR, 90% Cheaper | Pedestrian Observations