Pennsylvania has always led the U.S. in transportation. It’s time for that lead to take the next step with a comprehensive, state-wide rail network. According to my calculations, this plan would offer high-speed service to MSAs containing 76% of the state’s population and commuter service to a significant portion of the rest. Through this service Pennsylvania could easily declare energy independence and spur economic development in the face of rising energy costs world-wide.
It is important to note that these are only my musings. There is nothing official here. I have not conducted any ridership studies, surveys, or formal engineering on any of these alignments. I simply laid out what “looked” and “felt” right.
Cross-State Corridor (G-Earth Cross-State)
The flagship of this proposal is an NEC-like Cross-State Corridor linking Philadelphia with Pittsburgh. This would feature 2 to 3 tracks (space for 4 in metropolitan areas for commuter sharing) with full electrification. The corridor would be operated with FRA-Crash compliant Electric Trainsets (similar to Acela and Amtrak Regional) to mesh with the existing NEC and allow freight use overnight on limited sections.
Scranton Service and Erie Service (G-Earth Scranton) (G-Earth Erie)
A close secondary tier below the Cross-State Corridor would be corridors to Erie and Scranton. These lines would feature 2 to 3 tracks, but without electrification (atleast intially). Instead it would be operated with high-speed diesels, such as the JetTrain. It should also be noted that the Erie service could be rerouted to also serve Youngstown, OH if Ohio agrees to kick in their fair share of funding.
Pittsburgh Commuter (http://www.spcregion.org/ECTS/index.shtml)
I don’t know much about the Pittsburgh area (I’ve never even visited it!), and this plan appears comprehensive enough to meet my standards. So lets just run with this.
Philly Commuter (G-Earth Philly)
These would be additions to the current SEPTA network, but operated as express trains (skipping all except the placemarked stops). By charging higher fares for travel solely within the existing SEPTA area (but lower for travellers originating outside of the SEPTA service area), it would provide an express service for those willing to pay while preserving timely travel for those originating outside. This service would be mixed with freights outside of the current SEPTA system. In order to accomplish this, I propose trainsets mixing EMUs and DMUs to allow electrified operations on the SEPTA system, but diesel operations on freight trackage. This would mesh well into existing infrastructure while still offering competitive travel times. Also, though I basically copied the SVM proposal of running service to Wyomissing (though with more traditional equipment), some trains could instead be routed to Pottsville, giving service to that town as well.
Scranton Commuter (G-Earth Scranton)
This service would operate with more traditional trainsets, as in push-pull trainsets with a diesel at one end and cab-car at the other, or DMU’s (such as the Colorado Railcar vehicle). The exact vehicle would depend upon ridership (lower ridership for DMUs, higher for full trainsets). Service to Hazleton could be electrified if the above described “Scranton Service” were electrified, allowing higher speeds.
Harrisburg Commuter (G-Earth Harrisburg)
Once again, I have shamelessly ripped off existing plans. These basically encompass the corridor plans shown by MTP to Lebanon, Lancaster, York, and Carlisle. I simply nailed down station locations. I would anticipate that service to Lancaster could be operated with electric MU’s (similar to SEPTA’s Silverliners), while the other lines could be operated with diesel MU’s (such as Colorado Railcar’s DMU) or traditional trainsets - all depending on ridership.
Area Service
I did not draw any of these lines into G-Earth because they would operate once or twice daily and involve little to no infrastructure improvements. Basically, the trains would operate similar to existing Amtrak long-distance service (such as the Pennsylvanian). Possible markets for this service include:
-Scranton to Pittsburgh via Williamsport
-Existing Pennsylvanian Route (though this could be truncated to parts not included in the Cross-State Corridor)
-Allentown to Harrisburg via Reading
-Philly to Scranton via Reading, Pottsville, and Hazleton
Other Notes
I’d like to point out that I didn’t design much within the Wyoming Valley, Lehigh Valley, or the Capital Area. That is because I think all of these areas would be better served by Light Rail within the Metropolitan Area. The High-Speed/Commuter Rail lines detailed here would simply bring people into the Metropolitan Area, Light Rail could then distribute and circulate the public within the area.
Phasing
I reccomend that the Cross-State Corridor be constructed first. One of the main complaints made in Pennsylvania towards transit funding is that it goes to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, taking money away from the rest of the state. This line would provide high quality service to a large portion of the state, introducing a large portion of residents to high speed rail. It would also help to shorten travel times between New York City and Chicago. If Ohio and Indiana were to build extensions, an all-electric service between NYC and Chicago would be realized, drastically reducing travel times by rail (relieving capacity constraints on airports amongst other benefits). Once the Cross State Corridor is complete, secondary corridors to Scranton and Erie can be constructed granting access to the rest of the state. Commuter services could be constructed concurrently on the high-speed lines, and later on the new lines to complete the full plan.
Organization (http://www.dvarp.org/reform/case_for_reform.pdf)
I concur with DVARP’s Alternative G, which reccomends creating a state-wide Rail Department within PennDOT. This department would assume responsibility for all existing commuter rail (SEPTA and Corridor-One) and also handle all future line planning and operation. This arrangement would be ideal given the extensive nature of the proposals contained here - a statewide agency would be better equipped to plan, construct, and coordinate these operations. A statewide agency could also more easily combine orders to source rolling stock for usage across the state rather than single areas (for example, the new Silverliner V’s could also be flexed into service on Corridor One).
