Philadelphia Transportation & SEPTAHow we get around this city - above ground, underground, bike, train, foot, you name it heres the place to discuss it.
Even in the new Stiumulus Package, mass transit does not have much dedicated funding, and even what is available, is going to be spread out among so many different projects and cities.
PBS program NOW made its latest episode about mass transit, focusing in on Charlotte's recent experience with its new light rail line...which is conservative Republican mayor championed. That guy gets it...he understands transit, transit-oriented development, the whole thing.
The program also shows how the federal funds actually get distributed to various projects... in short, a lot of state politics is involved. No secret there.
It also comes with a whole bunch of strings attached, at least the new Stimulus Package money.
you can also use their additional web site features to compare SEPTA with 6 other transit systems nationwide... budgets, ridership, funding sources, etc.
I use it twice every day and so do a lot of other students. Get out of your little metal jail--you'd be surprised.
__________________
I'm on Paul Humber's Ignore List! (Until he proves me wrong.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussDiamond
I've found particular satisfaction with the "Ignore All" feature, but I'm a little disappointed that no one's yet presented even a hint of opposition to my very prudent and obviously correct viewpoints on everything under the sun.
Bhagavad-Gita 10.37 I am Krishna among my mighty kinsmen,
I am Arjuna among the Pandava princes,
I am the epic poet Vyasa among sages,
the inspired singer among bards.
And in your estimation, is Philly one of those handful of big cities that uses it enough?
My understanding is that the Federal Transit Admin policy is to fund new mass transit systems (in, generally, sun belt cities) over funding old systems that may have legitimate expansion needs or even major overhaul needs.
In such an instance, older infrastructure in cities like Philly crumbles...exactly the cities that have a population that is used to living near the transit and taking it everyday moreso than convincing sprawled out sun belt suburbanites to use their shiny new light rails.
Lrt was all the rage from San fran to Houston to kc. I don't think it's anantieastern bias. Boston built brt. I think lrt fits a lot of sun belt cities better since they have lower pop densities but it also works for pitt, which is building a new tunnel right now. Philly, like manhattan, needs another subway. They are more expensive, and transit money has been tight.
Location: Washington Square West/"Gayborhood"/"Midtown Village"
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldondre
I think lrt fits a lot of sun belt cities better since they have lower pop densities but it also works for pitt, which is building a new tunnel right now.
which our esteemed Governor just called "an unfortunate mistake."
I hope the North Shore Connector does what PAT hopes it will, but even though Pittsburgh just had its near-death experience while we're several years past ours, I still think that city has further to go before it really turns around -- and if they needed to build an LRT extension anywhere, it should have been to Oakland. But I believe that's in the direction of the Martin Luther King East Busway BRT.
If you buy the premise of that City Journal article being discussed elsewhere on this board, then even though it's probably a less wise use of mass transit construction funds, putting rail lines in not-so-dense cities in the hopes of seeding dense development a la Toronto 1955-present or Arlington 1977-today has a certain logic to it, as does building a subway down the spine of the densest urban corridor on the Pacific Coast (LA's Wilshire Boulevard). The hitch is, the planners and electeds need to be ready to enable that density, the way the two communities I mention in this paragraph did (Arlington having rewritten its zoning code to encourage density around subway stations it knew would come back in 1961, eight years before WMATA broke ground on the Metro).
But in terms of bang for the buck, repairing and expanding the already well used systems in the East and Midwest will produce greater returns.
__________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia
""Jazz and blogging are both intimate, improvisational, and individual -- but also inherently collective. And the audience talks over both." --Andrew Sullivan, "Why I Blog," The Atlantic, November 2008
which our esteemed Governor just called "an unfortunate mistake."
most people I know think they should have built the tunnel to Oakland first. Of course, our governor also said the convention center "probably wasn't worth it" yet it's his project. Still, the north shore connector will only connect the stadiums while the oakland project woudl have been the equivalent of the SS trolleys. For the so called "energy governor," he hasn't undertaken any substantial transportation projects (though he did provide operating funding). Even the Keystone Corridor Upgrade was signed by Ridge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
while we're several years past ours
are we? we're in a better position than 1992 in some ways, but we're right back there. Some areas improved but neighborhoods I used to visit friends in in the early 90's have gone from stable to wasteland. Jobs are down, the population is down...is this what a rennaisance looks like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
I still think that city has further to go before it really turns around
maybe so, which makes our inability to move ahead on projects inexcusable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
and if they needed to build an LRT extension anywhere, it should have been to Oakland. But I believe that's in the direction of the Martin Luther King East Busway BRT.
I'm not entirely sure what the routing for the "spine line" was but I think it involved a new tunnel to Oakland through the Hill district.
You took the words out of my mouth except I would add that "hardly" anyone uses it except for a handful of the big cities.
I use it every day. There are these long roads to nowhere in Montana, should they not be built because hardly anyone uses it. I guarantee you the ridership on Septa every day is much more significant then the daily rush hour in Montana. Also, what is wrong with expanding transit in the big cities? Why is that a bad thing?
well, yes, the comment was to show how/why mass transit gets shafted. But that doesn't mean it's the right policy. Moreover, the link shows good things about mass transit and it shows where exactly transit policy in the country as a whole has its issues that need fixing.
I use it every day. There are these long roads to nowhere in Montana, should they not be built because hardly anyone uses it. I guarantee you the ridership on Septa every day is much more significant then the daily rush hour in Montana. Also, what is wrong with expanding transit in the big cities? Why is that a bad thing?
From a national funding perspective.
Anyone with a car can use any public road.
Only people near a rail line will be able to use that line and only if it goes to where they want.
Roads are a fraction of the cost to construct and maintain than a line.
and here's the kicker... you can ship things on the same road. So a road helps all areas of the economy.
Where mass transit helps move the people it can't move the goods.
a rail line only works for a much smaller amount of uses than a road.
Again.. I want to see more and dedicated mass transit funding. We have enough roads in the US. Some areas still need new roads or larger roads.
and some areas def. need more mass transit. The 76 corridor.
But so does South Jersey where you have roads that aren't able to handle the commuting and that affect the area's other abilities.
Lot's of areas need to get commuters of the road more than just cars.
So where can you move commuters from roads where there isn't light rail?
Where are the areas of the region that have great highway but no rail transit?
Navy Yard's one.
So is South Jersey.
Still think a NE sub needs to go away from the R7 and 95 and too Huntington Valley or retoring a line to Newtown.
Most of your 95 traffic is coming from up there. West of the NE using Woodhaven Road and from Bucks using Woodhaven and 95 and Route 1 to all pile on the City's length of 95 and into the city.
Again cause Eldondre doesn't seem to get this so this is for him.
Imagine you live 10 minutes driving from a rail station.
If you do most likely it's not worth it to drive there and park if your total commute is 40 minutes in a car. (Bucks for example is about 40-45)
So you need to make sure you can get people to this new line who live withing driving range of the destination and the line and that the line IS faster than driving there.
Where this happens you have the highest use like the Main Line and areas along the El or the the RRs or Patco.
Roads are a fraction of the cost to construct and maintain than a line.
I'm gonna call shenanigans. Highways are extremely expensive. The real reason is that federal matching for highways is 80% of the total cost while, for years, it was 20% for transit projects. Recently it was changed to 50% but still not on par with roads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desolate
a rail line only works for a much smaller amount of uses than a road.
which may or may not be okay, depending what your goals are. Marginally reducing traffic by diverting people helps those still on the road the trucks delivering goods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desolate
and some areas def. need more mass transit. The 76 corridor.
we agree completely, it happens once in a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desolate
Where are the areas of the region that have great highway but no rail transit?
Navy Yard's one.
So is South Jersey.
so are the NW burbs see R6extension.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by desolate
Still think a NE sub needs to go away from the R7 and 95 and too Huntington Valley or retoring a line to Newtown.
I think the Fox Chase alignment (which could eventually go to Newtown) is the best. According to the study, you got 80% of the riders for 50% of the cost vs the blvd alignment. You could follow it up with an el extension at some point, maybe as far as cottman(though underground).
Quote:
Originally Posted by desolate
Again cause Eldondre doesn't seem to get this so this is for him.
Imagine you live 10 minutes driving from a rail station.
If you do most likely it's not worth it to drive there and park if your total commute is 40 minutes in a car. (Bucks for example is about 40-45)
So you need to make sure you can get people to this new line who live withing driving range of the destination and the line and that the line IS faster than driving there.
Where this happens you have the highest use like the Main Line and areas along the El or the the RRs or Patco.
what are you talking about? When I have said anything that indicated I didn't get this? A good line will be a combination of park n ride, destination, and walkable communities. the R6 extension fits this. VF park n ride, walkable Phoenixville, parkn ride, walkable pottstown, reading, parknride wissanoming.
Location: Washington Square West/"Gayborhood"/"Midtown Village"
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldondre
are we? we're in a better position than 1992 in some ways, but we're right back there. Some areas improved but neighborhoods I used to visit friends in in the early 90's have gone from stable to wasteland. Jobs are down, the population is down...is this what a rennaisance looks like?
Well, the slope of the population loss curve has steadily gotten shallower census by census, and year after year in the estimates, since 1970. I haven't looked at the immigration figures from abroad, but we're certainly getting more of them now than we had in years past, and most of the other older cities that have gained population have done so largely through immigration from abroad. I suspect we may even find that the loss curve flattens out and turns upward by the end of the decade. (I thought it did so from 2007 to 2008, but see no Census Bureau estimates for last year at the city level, contrary to statements I have made on these forums recently.) From 2006 to 2007, and since the 2000 census, Pittsburgh also lost residents at a greater rate than Philadelphia had.
I'm sure that some neighborhoods you're familiar with have gone downhill. In the meantime, the stretch of the Italian Market below Washington Avenue, which was all but dead five years ago, has come back to life thanks to the Mexican immigrants who have settled in the vicinity. Washington Avenue, which was pretty desolate a decade ago, is anything but that now, and the Asian and Mexican businesses along that street that cater to new Philadelphians have been among the major contributors to the street's improvement. The area now called "Southwest Center City" looks better now than it did in 2000, and it looked better in 2000 than it did a decade earlier. I think we could plausibly refer to the state of Philadelphia today as a Tale of Two Cities -- and others have. I see no evidence of the second city in Pittsburgh: is any part of that city gaining residents? That's why I call the press about Pittsburgh hype: there are at least parts of this city that have indeed grown and improved of late.
Quote:
maybe so, which makes our inability to move ahead on projects inexcusable.
The Convention Center expansion is IIRC the biggest public works project currently under way in the state. My guess is that the Gov and the local officials shot their wad on getting that under way and need to recharge their batteries before attempting any other similarly sized project here.
Quote:
It certainly does.
Were you referring to my entire previous point or just the small piece of it you quoted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by desolate
So you need to make sure you can get people to this new line who live withing driving range of the destination and the line and that the line IS faster than driving there.
Where this happens you have the highest use like the Main Line and areas along the El or the the RRs or Patco.
A rail line need not be faster than a comparable drive for people to ride it, but it must be time-competitive. The drive from Yardley to Center City via I-95 even at rush hour is less than the 55 minutes the train takes to get from Yardley to Market East, yet the parking lot at Yardley fills with cars every weekday morning. My guess is that all those riders opt for the train after factoring in total trip time plus expense of parking in the city plus the possibility of delays or slowdowns.
__________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia
""Jazz and blogging are both intimate, improvisational, and individual -- but also inherently collective. And the audience talks over both." --Andrew Sullivan, "Why I Blog," The Atlantic, November 2008
From 2006 to 2007, and since the 2000 census, Pittsburgh also lost residents at a greater rate than Philadelphia had.
... I see no evidence of the second city in Pittsburgh: is any part of that city gaining residents? That's why I call the press about Pittsburgh hype: there are at least parts of this city that have indeed grown and improved of late.
I'm not sure how this became a thread about Pittsburgh, but all your points reflect everyone's opinion about Philadelphia in 1992. Yes, Philadelphia is probably a decade ahead in revitalization (thought financially we're in just as bad shape as we were in 1992) but they're no more hyped than we are. Seems more like personal pet peeve of yours. I read some stuff on them and they are already speculating that the curve has slowed down, etc. None of its covers up the fact that they are investing in their city and, if anything, it shows a complete lack of ability on our part. the PCC is a state project, however wasteful. City transit is a city function. Allegheny county is the power behind the north shore and supposedly the push for Oakland.
It's not their fault Philadelphia has done nothing with the Navy Yard and NE subway proposals. Perhaps if the city powers that be were as confident in our future as you, that wouldn't be the case. Nonetheless, a times article or two doesn't make for "hype" IMO. However, if you've travelled to Pittsburgh and other rust belt cities,it does offer hope. They seem to have averted the collapse that is so evident walking downtown buffalo's streets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
rail line need not be faster than a comparable drive for people to ride it, but it must be time-competitive. The drive from Yardley to Center City via I-95 even at rush hour is less than the 55 minutes the train takes to get from Yardley to Market East, yet the parking lot at Yardley fills with cars every weekday morning. My guess is that all those riders opt for the train after factoring in total trip time plus expense of parking in the city plus the possibility of delays or slowdowns.
Why mass transit gets the shaft everytime
