Route 100 Express Service - Part II

Can't find the original thread to append to. It looks as if the geniuses at 1234 have struck again. See the August 26 posting on Creighton's blog:

http://frankfordterminal.blogspot.com/

At this rate by next spring the R5 will be 100% locals from Thorndale to Lansdale.

The changes to Route 100 that were implemented on June 14 was primarily a budget related issue. The August 30 schedule change will use two-car trains during peak periods, negating the need for several scheduled trips to Bryn Mawr. One interesting fact with the present local schedule is that SEPTA is now carrying more riders (nearly 8,400 passenger trips per weekday) than they did with the Spring 2004 schedule.

FYI, SEPTA Service Planning has developed a proposed "New Look" schedule for Route 100 weekday peak hour operations. Since March 2004, ridership has increased by over 30% to Gulph Mills and Norristown stations and this schedule would reflect these increases. Three levels of service have been developed: Norristown Limiteds, Hughes Park Expresses and Bryn Mawr locals. This schedule would actually require fewer operational resources than the August 30 schedule and the Spring 2004 schedule when express service previously operated. However, this proposal is contingent upon relocating V-Tag switching hardware from Villanova to Hughes Park. If the SEPTA Facilities group can relocate the V-Tag in a timely manner, they are hoping to implement this schedule effective November 22, 2004, otherwise it would be implemented with the Spring 2005 schedule change.

I, for one, am glad to see SEPTA doing something to improve service along this line. I don't think express trains are appropriate for a light-rail line with only 3 trains per hour (every 20 minues) in off-peak times. Even during peak times, there are only 4 trains an hour (every 15 minutes) unless you happen to live east of Bryn Mawr. Compare that with the El which runs about every 8 minutes all day.

I'd like to see the 100 schedule synchronized to the El schedule, so that you can transfer to and from the El without a long wait.

Lucius Kwok wrote:Compare that with the EL which runs about every 8 minutes all day.

Remember that the term 'day' is defined as '24 hours time' by most rational Americans. SEPTA defines 'day' as 'the period of time between 4:05a and 12 midnight' ... thus making yet another thing that SEPTA does 'not rational.'

I think most people would call that time from midnight to 4am to be night.

Lucius Kwok wrote:I don't think express trains are appropriate for a light-rail line with only 3 trains per hour (every 20 minues) in off-peak times. Even during peak times, there are only 4 trains an hour (every 15 minutes)

I don't think anyone was proposing off-peak expresses. And remember, the 15-minute headways are the result of cumulative service cutbacks over the last few years. For a long time there were 5 cars an hour on the north end of the line at peak times. IIRC there was even an experiment where they ran 6 per for a while.

The whole idea of express service is to shorten the travel time for those riders who have the longest trip. Norristown to 69th Street is 13 miles and takes ~ a half-hour on a local. Similar distances on most RRD lines are provided with express service at peak times, so why shouldn't the 100 benefit similarly?

In the Bullet days the expresses and limiteds made the full run in 20-22 minutes. Even with the slower N-5's you could shave maybe 12 or 15 minutes off a round trip.

I dunno ... it seems to me that there has to be a "tipping point" where slowing down service to save money drives away (pun very intended) enough riders that the savings are negated. Nobody ever conceived of the 100 as a mini-Acela, but if it's seen as an overgrown streetcar stopping at every block it loses much of what makes it attractive and important.

I'd like to see the 100 schedule synchronized to the El schedule, so that you can transfer to and from the El without a long wait.

Amen.

The route 100 is a strange beast. It's built like a heavy rail rapid transit line, yet runs through suburban territory like a commuter rail line. It operates with transit headways, fares, and costs, but is expected to provide commuter rail type service with limited-stop service.

My position is that frequency of service is more important than total trip times, especially since saving 5-10 minutes en-route is negated if you miss your train and have to wait 15-20 minutes for the next one.

Lucius Kwok wrote:The route 100 is a strange beast. It's built like a heavy rail rapid transit line, yet runs through suburban territory like a commuter rail line. It operates with transit headways, fares, and costs, but is expected to provide commuter rail type service with limited-stop service.

Route 100, as the Philadelphia & Western Railroad was best described as "Americas Most Unusual Electric Railway". As the P&W, it was most often placed in the interurban class ( and is often described as one of two remaining US Interurban Railways), and was definately part of a "true" interurban line from 1912 until 1949--- the period during which the Lehigh Valley Transit Co.'s Liberty Bell Route from Allentown used it to reach 69th Street via Norristown. I have also seen it described as a "Super Interurban" because the level of its construction ( completely grade separated ROW, high level platforms, complete block signalling, etc) greatly exceeded the standards of the "typical" interurban.
Some describe it now as merely a high speed trolley line, but it is still much more than that. I suspect that describing it as an unusual type of Rapid Transit Line may be the most accurate description.