Debate: Should Reading Terminal/Viaduct have been kept?

I'd like to have a discussion on the pros/cons of what might have been if Reading Terminal was kept open, or if it should have, or if we're better off without it, outside of nostalsia of course.

Would Philadelphia have had more transit options or a larger system on the Reading side had it been kept open, or would Market East have suffered more without the Convention Center? I vaguely remember the area while the terminal was open, and it was a stark contrast to what is there today. Most of the trash is gone, but there are still plenty of vagrents to go around (visit any restroom in Market East after dark and you'll see what I mean).

The Reading system in Philadelphia took the biggest hit as far as service cutbacks go since SEPTA took over, might the terminal have been kept if those cutbacks never happened?

I'm looking forward to a good discussion with everyone on this.

Not necessarily, but SEPTA hasn't done anything to replace its capacity to house diesel trains. Such things could have included better air circulation for the tunnels, dual mode locomotives, or a useable connection of the Reading side and 30th street.

I agree. We still have a desiel terminal in Philadelphia with 30th street station (Septa would still have to build diesel maintence facilities but at least the station is viable). The posiblities for dmu/emu pairs along with dual mode locos (which I don't trust farther then I can throw them at the moment) would make CCCT opperation feasible as well. Diesel operations are possible Septa just doesn't want to be bothered. And in their defence, the fixed cost of building a maintence facility for a most likely such a small fleet of diesel equitment is a little high.

Sean@Temple.

P.S. I like the convention center but I never got to see a train inside the old terminal outside of pictures and it is something I would have liked to see.

The Civic Center on 34th Street is also about to become a casuality of the new convention center.

No, I like the CCCT with Market East better than the idea of keeping the Reading Viaduct. The benefits of service to all three CC stations by every commuter rail line far outweigh the historic/nostalgic benefits of the viaduct. I agree that Market East is not an attractive station, but it works, something that can't be said for all of SEPTA. The CCCT is probably the only service improvement SEPTA has made since taking over the commuter lines. SCB2525 is right: the problem is lack of will/ability to make the tunnel diesel-accessible.

If there are fewer options on the Reading side since the merger of the systems, part of this is due to SEPTA's short-sightedness, but part of it is due to the selling point of any merger: elimination of redundant service. Did we need two rail lines to Norristown? Three or four stations in North Philly? Fo that matter, do we need two lines to Chestnut Hill? No, the system is better served by bypassing the Viaduct and Reading Terminal.

On the other hand, I think that the tracks that branched west from the Viaduct and under Pennsylvania Ave. can still be quite useful as a trolley tunnel to North Philly and Manayunk/Roxborough. But we should discuss that in another thread.

I think the terminal would have been a great facility had SEPTA kept its diesel routes in service, since most of them were on the Reading side of the system. I think there would have been enough routes to justify it with Bethlehem, Jersey City, and Newtown (am I forgetting one?), but the benefits of the convention center unforunately do not outweigh those benefits.

One thing I think we are lacking now is a station close enough to Center City, that is out of CC for quick access in and out of the city (Spring Garden Station).

Much of what has been said here regarding retention of the Reading Terminal ( as a rail terminal) and the viaduct could have been said back in the 1950's about PRR's Broad Street Station. Of course retaining Broad Street would have meant retaining the "Chinese Wall", which in the '50's, most Philadelphians saw as an eyesore. I suspect that for Philadelphians ( other than those who have a special affinity for the Reading Company), the viaduct would evoke the same feelings as the "Chinese Wall". And, of course, when both the Reading Terminal and Broad Street Station were "alive and well", there was plenty of Center City rail access for both local and intercity trains. However, I don't know that having both of those stations in today's situation would result in a significant improvement in the services now available. There might be more convenience to some degree, but I doubt that more, or even better service would be the result.

jfrey40535 wrote:One thing I think we are lacking now is a station close enough to Center City, that is out of CC for quick access in and out of the city (Spring Garden Station).

This might be a good idea, although I don't know how many riders would board there. The Northern Liberties area is becoming more affluent, but I don't know that it's that much more populated than before. Also, it might be expensive to add a station at Spring Garden now. Isn't the tunnel still pretty deep at that point?
Either way, you make a good point. Spring Garden Station may be the most important loss sustained by moving from the Viaduct to the CCCT.

Bottom line is still: SSRR (shrunken SEPTA regional rail). I daresay that if an alternate diesel terminal (30th Street lower level?) could have been utilized, things would not be as they are today...

SilentCal wrote:No, I like the CCCT with Market East better than the idea of keeping the Reading Viaduct. The benefits of service to all three CC stations by every commuter rail line far outweigh the historic/nostalgic benefits of the viaduct.

I agree 100%. The ability to distribute passengers from both sides of the system to all three stations is very valuable: without it, a lot more people would have be transferring to subways or buses for their final destination, with accordant falloff in ridership.

The CCCT is probably the only service improvement SEPTA has made since taking over the commuter lines.

Uh, the CCCC (*) was a City of Philadelphia project. Most of the work on it predated the SEPTA takeover.

SCB2525 is right: the problem is lack of will/ability to make the tunnel diesel-accessible.

Yep. The technical solutions are challenging, but they exist.

*--note that the formal name of the project is Center City Commuter Connection.

Irish Chieftain wrote:I daresay that if an alternate diesel terminal (30th Street lower level?) could have been utilized, things would not be as they are today...

I don't think so. First of all, most of the diesel services were eliminated in 1981, and the absence of a suitable terminal had nothing to do with it. Second, there was an alternative terminal in 1984 (Fox Chase) and SEPTA management dropped it like a hot potato.

Correct, SEPTA's decision to eliminate diesel service really had nothing to do with the tunnel. Was more or less for the same reasons why the N. Phila trolley system was abandonded, the equipment was in bad shape. I don't know what the ridership stats were on some of these lines, but I'm sure if they weren't bursting with people that was probablly the secondary factor.

Did SEPTA have a diesel refueling facility at Fox Chase? I wasn't aware of that. I never did know where SEPTA did the refueling of the RDC's for Newtown, I assumed it was in Newtown, but I was only 9 when the trains stopped so I never really noticed.

I daresay that elimination of diesel service had everything to do with the CCCT. A project of that scope isn't conceived and then executed within the space of three years, certainly not in these days. The degradation of the diesel service was indeed planned, and then executed to make it look like "oh, nobody wanted to use it". Sequence of events would have had little to do with it; they wanted all-electric service and they didn't want to electrify the diesel lines.

Fox Chase as a terminal? Viability would have been nonexistent. Would a Fox Chase-Reading train fly today? or Fox Chase-Bethlehem?

SilentCal wrote:The benefits of service to all three CC stations by every commuter rail line far outweigh the historic/nostalgic benefits of the viaduct.

I could not have put it better. I grew up in the era of Reading Terminal and while I do have nostalgic memories of RDC's in the shed, that in no way counterbalances the inconvenience and inefficiency of having to make a double transfer just to get from one side of Center City to the other.

For a current example, visit Boston. The North and South Stations are termini of what are effectively two separate commuter rail systems. You can only connect by the subway or hiking. There's not much to envy in SEPTA, but they'd give one heck of a lot to have a similar connection in Bean-land.

Irish Chieftain wrote:I daresay that elimination of diesel service had everything to do with the CCCT. A project of that scope isn't conceived and then executed within the space of three years, certainly not in these days. The degradation of the diesel service was indeed planned, and then executed to make it look like "oh, nobody wanted to use it". Sequence of events would have had little to do with it; they wanted all-electric service and they didn't want to electrify the diesel lines.

Fox Chase as a terminal? Viability would have been nonexistent. Would a Fox Chase-Reading train fly today? or Fox Chase-Bethlehem?

They still could have operated branch lines that connect to the diesels. Newtown could have run some trains to Fox Chase and the Quakertown could have connected to the R5 at Lansdale. Then at least they're still in operation. And with increased ridership, they might have been able to electrify the lines as well.