A transit advocacy idea

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Green Maned Lion

Engineer
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
8,333
Location
NJ
I was ranting away on the NARP mail topic, and realized I was creating a useful suggestion for how to improve advocacy in your area. Since some of the service I am discussing would surely be under Amtrak's prevue, it is in my opinion related to this section. Mods move if you disagree.

I am working on a project to form my own advocacy organization with the goal of merging together the infrastructure and routes of Capital Area Transit (Harrisburg, PA), Red Rose Transit (Lancaster, PA), Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority (Reading, PA), Lehigh And Northampton Transportation Authority (Bethlehem/Allentown/Easton, PA), Centre Area Transportation Authority (State College, PA), Rabbit Transit (York, PA), Raider Regional Transit (Shippensburg, PA), County of Lackawanna Transit System (Scranton, PA), Monroe County Transit Authority (Stroudsburg, PA), and Schuylkill Transportation Syatem (Pottsville, PA), into an expanded and integrated system I'm referring to as NEPTA (North Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority). The idea of this is to take a large number of non-connecting and independently operated county transit systems, connect them through run-through routes, and combine their equipment and management to provide greater service throughout north eastern PA… at a lower cost. That's the first part of the plan, and intended to be introduced partly as a cost cutting initiative. Its also a basis of an idea you can use to promote mass transit in your area. Frankly, and honestly, proving transit works in most areas starts with a low-cost bus.

Eventually, I am hoping to use the success of this connection to add rail service in the area. I then intend to try and restore a Reading-Pottstown-Pheonixville-Norristown train connecting with SEPTA, and a Norristown-Lansdale-Quakertown route that hopefully can eventually be built out to Bethelehem, Allentown, and Easton- possibly connecting with train service in or to P-burg and New York.

I also have pie-in-the-sky dream plans that while they aren't secret, I don't tend to loudly share them with the powers to which I am pitching my plans. That includes a New York-Dover-Stroudsburg-Scranton route, obviously. Also, a Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Bloomsburg route, a Scranton-Binghampton route, a Tamaqua-Pottsville-Reading route, a Reading-Lebanon-Harrisburg route, and a Reading-Pottsville-Shamokin-Williamsport route.

The first part is sold as a "make sense of chaos" cost-cut-and-improve concept. The second is sold on a "People are using transportation, and we should create cheap to implement service to improve mobility." The third, if I can ever justify it via ridership and demand, is sold as a "we need more public transit, and will use this to stroke your ego, politician." The third requires a public anxious for public transit- something that comes when that public uses a transit system that they find cost and time effective.

You sell the first phase to politicians and the public by talking about reduced cost for improved service. By removing tons of excess management, you reduce management expense. By using equipment over longer distances, you improve the efficiency with which that equipment is utilized. By keeping the equipment moving, you reduce idling fuel wastage. By centralizing maintenance, you reduce overhead. By eventually standardizing the fleet, you create economies of scale. For similar money, you can operate more extensive service, and more frequently. Do not advertise it as green, or for the benefit of the people- instead, advertise that it gets them votes of greenies and popular benefit, while allowing them to cut costs tremendously- which they can also flaunt. The system benefits the politicians.

The second phase requires a modicum of backing of the public. You convince the politicians to work with the host railroads to permit service along the existing and well serviced line. You purchase used locomotives- by the time we are talking about this going into effect, we are probably talking about retired P42s. You purchase used equipment, be it Amfleets or Metra Galleries. Preferably Metra Galleries for the advantage in cost of ADA compliance. You need one locomotive and 3 cars (one loco for power, 3 cars for the train) for 4 trips a day. Two locomotives and 7 cars (one loco for each train, 3 cars per train, 1 spare car) for bi-hourly service. Four locomotives and 11 cars for hourly service (3 locomotives for use, one spare, 3 cars per train, 2 spare cars). You do this cheap as heck. Think the $30 million Music City Star program for inspiration.

The third and subsequent phases ride on the back of pubic demand. By then you should have an interested public.

High speed rail? Get the regional rail going first. Then we can talk about the hundred-billion dollar programs.
 
Sounds a lot like the interurban systems of the very early 20th century. I vaguely remember reading that it was almost possible to get from New York to Chicago without getting onto a "real" railroad, and for a (long) sequence of 3 cent fares. As with any linear project, the last mile is going to eat your lunch,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top