In 2015, the Post Gazette ran an article with some shocking figures. It reported that spending $1.5 billion on track improvements between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg would save less than 10 minutes each way on the 5.5 hour trip. The figures were based on a study documented in the Keystone West High Speed Rail Study. The report estimated that high speed rail between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh would cost $38 billion. The mountainous topography between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh makes railroad construction particularly expensive.
I plan to write about the merits of high speed rail in a future post. In this post, I will focus on more cost effective improvements.
Over the past several years, Pennsylvania has made significant investments in the passenger rail system between Harrisburg and Philadelphia. These investments have paid off, resulting in increased ridership, lower travel times, and frequent train service. It is faster to take the train from Harrisburg to Philadelphia than to drive. By contrast, the rail system to the West of Harrisburg has not seen any improvements since the high speed rail study.
There are however some cost effective things that could be done to improve train service West of Harrisburg.
Additional Rail Carriages
The most cost effective would be to add an extra passenger car or two to the existing Pennsylvanian train that travels daily from Pittsburgh to New York through Harrisburg and Philadelphia. The cost to add an additional car when a train is already being run is comparatively small. This change would also boost ridership. For the segment of the route between Harrisburg and Philadelphia the seats are not reserved. On my last train trip, the train was overbooked for this segment, and the conductor said that this was a common occurrence. Even when the existing number of cars are not fully booked, the extra seats would improve the experience for passengers by making it easier for parties to sit together. I expect the extra ticket sales this improvement would cause would pay for most and possibly all of the cost.
Raised Platforms
The second improvement would be to build raised platforms at the stations between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. The Amfleet carriages used on the trains from New York to Pittsburgh have a floor height that is 51 inches above the top of the rail. The train stations from Harrisburg going East have raised platforms that are level with the floor height. This allows for rapid ingress and egress, reducing the dwell time of the train at the station.
The stations West of Harrisburg have ground level platforms. At these stops the train crew open trap doors to provide access to interior stairs that allow for boarding and alighting. Safety rules require that crew members be present when passengers are boarding or alighting using the stairs to the ground level platforms. As a result, fewer doors are available at stations with ground level platforms.
When I have taken the Pennsylvanian train to or from Pittsburgh, boarding and alighting passengers takes approximately ten minutes as a result of the ground level platform. The effect of platform height on dwell time is smaller at the other stations between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg because there are fewer people boarding or alighting, but there is still some delay.
Building raised platforms would be a one time cost that would result in long term faster passenger train service along the route. It has the potential to provide a greater time improvement than the $1.5 billion of track straightening at a fraction of the cost.
Two challenges would need to be addressed to implement raised platforms. The first is that raised platforms have the potential to interfere with freight trains. The tracks used between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg are owned by Norfolk Southern and see heavy freight traffic. This issue can be resolved by building gauntlet tracks at the stations.
The second challenge applies only to the Pittsburgh station. Since Pittsburgh has the highest passenger volume west of Harrisburg, Pittsburgh would benefit most from a raised platform. However, Pittsburgh has a second daily Amtrak passenger train, the Capitol Limited. The Capitol Limited uses double decker Superliner railcars. The lower level of these railcars has a floor that is 18 inches above the top of the track rail. As a consequence, passengers are not able to board the Capitol Limited from a raised platform.
Pittsburgh union station currently has four platforms (one of which is disused). It may be possible to cost effectively build raised platforms for the Pennsylvanian and ground level platforms for the Capitol Limited. This should be evaluated.
The Keystone West High Speed Rail study referenced earlier did not include implementing a raised platform at Pittsburgh, but did include it on the list of improvements for Altoona. The study estimated two raised platforms with gauntlet tracks, as well as signal improvements, 3 elevators, and a pedestrian bridge would cost $15.6 million. This provides a rough idea of what the cost of a raised platform in Pittsburgh would be.
The stations West of Harrisburg with the highest passenger volume are Pittsburgh, Altoona, and Johnstown. These would benefit most from raised platforms.
Conclusion
It is important for transit advocates to focus on cost effective transportation improvements. Rail travel is a good investment if funds are focused on projects that provide good value.
