Philadelphia Transportation Thread

[pwp]

This is a continuation of the conversation started in the Philly Development Thread. Hoping to generate attention and interest to this issue as if we see it to fruition, would have countless positive effect on Philadelphia.

[pwp]

For the sake of saving time and not reinventing the wheel, Don's quoted below to summarize why an expansive subway system is a valuable, if not necessary, step for Philadelphia's growth. Philly has designed a system which transports thousands upon thousands of suburbanites into the city but has failed to provide a modern and efficient means of moving them within the city. Imagine the possibilities of an improved system with additional subway lines: A Parkway route, The Boulevard subway, City Ave Line, etc. Couple this expansion with the American Commerce Center, low real estate prices and a burgeoning population of college graduates. Maybe if we work together one day we can see this come to fruition.

Originally Posted by Don098

Public transportation in Philadelphia is geared towards the suburbs with a subway that only runs along the absolute skeleton of the city with enormous gaps. Other American cities as dense as Philadelphia, like Chicago, New York, Washington DC, Boston, San Francisco, etc. all have more expansive subway and rail networks WITHIN the city so residents can move about the city as a pedestrian commuter rather than driving to each station. In Philadelphia, you can't really get around WITHIN the city via our subway network unless you live within the buffer zones of broad street and market street. If you look at a population density map, you can see that huge, huge chunks of the city do not live within reasonable walking distance of a subway to move around efficiently. Sure there are buses but they are certainly slower than cars which is why a better subway network could compete with cars in terms of travel time.

Originally Posted by Don098

I think there is a chance that Obama may enact a bill for subway systems to stimulate inner-city rejuvenation that is similar in scale to Eisenhower's Federal-Aid Highway Act (National Interstate Highways and Defense Act) of 1956. He is definitely our first urban president in a LONG, LONG time and I highly anticipate some real transformative federal appropriation to help cities. That's the only way we're going to reintegrate our cities in this country. Not only would this act be an infrastructure improvement, but by declining car culture it would help to alleviate some our road congestion problems (much less need to spend billions in widening roads), less need for expensive underground city parking facilities, a greater sense of community, less health problems as people walk more, and a move away from sprawling suburbs which would help to mitigate climate change in terms of land use feedbacks as well as less GHGs. Electricity demands would be higher, but in conjunction with a move to clean energy, this is really how a true, intelligent investment of federal funds would help to get america running again. People need to understand that these bailouts, if done correctly, are INVESTMENTS. It's not like renting apartments or buying a car where your money just disappears or depreciates immediately. These are very long term investments that in the end would be a bed rock foundation to our nation's economy.

[SpongeG]

i've never ever seen their existing system

whats it like?

[MonkeyRonin]

Extending the Broad Street Spur into the southeast corner of the city (and then maybe back to the southwest), then turning it into a separate line and extending it to the Mount Airy area would seem like a pretty good first move on an expansion. Like so.

[volguus zildrohar]

The current system is essentially the spines of what was originally envisioned to be a sort of hub and spoke system.



The Blue and Orange Lines are the heavy rail subway lines, each originally meant to have several branches into various sections of the city as well as a feeder loop within Center City itself (The Red Line is to Philadelphia what PATH is to NYC and generally is not considered part of the city's subway system). As it is now, most trips in the city via transit involve a bus/subway transfer even for moderate distances. The ridership numbers are healthy but much lower than one would expect for a city this size.

In 1912 a comprehensive subway plan was presented to the city and small sections of it were constructed but thanks to the usual issues (funding, political will, greed) the rest never happened. SEPTA has, until recently, put the emphasis on suburban to city routings. Direct connections between various activity centers in the city are often indirect at best and cumbersome at worst, particularly depending on time of travel. This is not to say that it is hopelessly difficult to traverse Philadelphia via SEPTA but again it is more complex than it ought to be and the lack of a more extensive subway system is a big part of it.

This map, courtesy of Phillyskyline, depicts the original proposals:



There have been only reconstructions projects, slight route extensions and realignments since the 1950s. While this isn't terribly over par for other cities with systems of this age the fact that Philadelphia's subway never grew beyond the embryonic stage has really hurt the cohesiveness of Philadelphia. The economic and social geography of this city would be quite different today if even 1/2 of the original plan had been built.

[ardecila]

Isn't PATCO trying to build a waterfront line in roughly the same place that's depicted on that plan? There is apparently some progress...

[hammersklavier]

The fact that this city never built the balance of its planned subway system is today a sword of Damocles for those of us who would like to see it expanded.

Had they fleshed the system out as they were originally trying to, there would today be subways along Ridge, Germantown, and the Boulevard. But Ridge and Germantown run through both extremely wealthy districts, e.g., Manayunk, Chestnut Hill, of the city, as well as extremely poor ones, e.g., Strawberry Mansion, Nicetown, and Northeasterners have been most resistant to the Boulevard subway expansion, although the original plan when the Boulevard was created was to put a subway line there too, as yet another spine.

The main current service expansion proposals in Philly right now are two PATCO expansion, one into South Jersey, the other a light rail line along the waterfront, as well as a route restoration along the R3 from Elwyn to Wawa (it originally went to West Chester, so even then...)

There are a number of threads on Philly Blog and Philadelphia Speaks that talk about this issue:
http://www.philadelphiaspeaks.com/fo...alignment.html
http://www.philadelphiaspeaks.com/fo...n-pa-side.html
http://www.philadelphiaspeaks.com/fo...ents-plan.html

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=70890
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=65900
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=66229
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=70376
...and many more. The point being, we all have our own ideas about what to do about our lack of rail mass transit.

[Nomad]

Not to get too into this now, but Philadelphia's hands are rather tied with any new subway service. It is not the decision of the City - projects of this scope are regional in nature as well as needing federal funds for construction. Local funding is a different issue, and currently Phildelphia's local share is about 25 percent of costs (far lower than many other places around the country)

Increased funding would have to come from additional federal funds in the next transportation package or increasing the local share which would involve some sort of tax increase or funneling money out of one program into a transit program. Not to be pessimistic, bot for the foreseeable future, neither will happen.

Now how the regional federal funding is allocated is similar to SEPTA where there is more power in the counties than in the city as they have more votes on the DVRPC board. Additionaly, any new projects must be on the DVRPC regional long range plan - the draft 2035 plan is almost complete.

All in all, to get any additional subway service in Philadelphia would have to be a big sell to the regional players OR the state for increased funding to SEPTA. This is much bigger than Philadelphia as a city.

[the urban politician]

The problem Philadelphia faces is hauntingly similar to Chicago's. It has an excellent transportation network getting people into its central area, but doesn't have much of a system (other than buses) to get people around its central area once they arrive, other than expensive taxicabs.

Ultimately, I have little hope that anything will be done to improve this for a very long time. This is a problem that is outside of Philadelphia or Chicago's hands. It's a problem of the lack of funding for transit nationally.

[Crawford]

While I don't doubt that Philly would like or wants an extended subway, on what basis would this be needed?

Philly's existing subway does not have particularly heavy ridership, and Septa suburban rail coverage is extremely extensive.

If I were to prioritize new subway lines in this country, I don't think any proposed Philly route would come close to being a top priority.

[VivaLFuego]

As with Chicago, Philadelphia really isn't dense enough to support anything other than radial rail lines emanating from a dense employment core. Actually, few places in the world are dense enough to support cross-town, intracity, non-CBD rail lines - the G in New York is that system's lowest ridership line, and every other NY subway line is oriented to serve either Lower Manhattan, Midtown, or both.

That said, Philadelphia indeed has several fairly dense areas that lack any rail connectivity on either the rapid transit or suburban rail networks.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Actually, few places in the world are dense enough to support cross-town, intracity, non-CBD rail lines - the G in New York is that system's lowest ridership line, and every other NY subway line is oriented to serve either Lower Manhattan, Midtown, or both.

G train ridership is 100.000 daily, which is pretty decent for a very short, non-CBD line. It has the third lowest ridership, and is slightly ahead of the W and M (shuttle trains are not counted).

Though I guess you could say the G has the lowest ridership of any track, rather than any route, because the W and M share tracks with the much busier R and J, respectively.

My issue with a Philly expansion is not whether non-CBD service should be funded; I can't imagine they would build such lines.

I am questioning why something like a Main Line route would be a priority, when there's already an excellent suburban rail route along roughly the same path? The same would go for virtually every proposed route in NE Philly and the PA suburbs.

[Nomad]

I think a better question is whether we want to keep expanding the service out from the core or providing more opportunities within. Expansion services right now tend to be additional stops from existing lines, with examples such as from the Elwynn station to a new Wawa station in Delaware County on the R3 or extending the Broad Street Line in Philadelphia past the stadiums to the Navy Yard. Other 'expansions' include the Schuylkill Valley Metro past Norristown on the R6 to Phoenixville, Pottstown and on to Reading.

Expanding the ends of the lines, while reducing outward congestion, really only encourages sprawl. (maybe not with the Broad Street Line)

What would arguably be better is additional lines within the system and suburb to suburb service. New developments can then grow up around the intersections of lines, similar to how development occurred when rail first came about. But to do that, you need to have land to build and be able to buy it. That is EXTREMELY difficult in this region that is primarily built out in the inner ring suburbs. The exurbs are not dense enough to warrant transit lines at this point. So - what do you do????

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by Crawford

While I don't doubt that Philly would like or wants an extended subway, on what basis would this be needed?

Philly's existing subway does not have particularly heavy ridership, and Septa suburban rail coverage is extremely extensive.

If I were to prioritize new subway lines in this country, I don't think any proposed Philly route would come close to being a top priority.

its ridership is low because it doesn't connect to enough points to make it convenient for many people to use. if it were expanded and more integrated with the overall city plan, it would be used like crazy. as it is now, the only way to transfer from one line to the other is either at city hall or at 8th and market (if you use the broad-ridge spur.)

[miketoronto]

Ridership I like is low on the Philly subway network, because the communities it serves are not the communities downtown workers live in anymore. So they don't capture a large amount of commuters. Low ridership also can be an issue of public safety. The Philly subway has a very bad reputation safety wise. And while fights happen everywhere, the following fight shows what most people probably think riding the Septa subway is like on a daily basis.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygvdw3...eature=related


Second before expanding the subway, I would increase service on the current subway system, and on the suburban rail lines.

You can increase service on some of the suburban rail lines to like every 10 minutes and provide frequent rapid transit service to many points in the city like Manyunk, etc.

[ichigo]

copied from Philly thread...

Originally Posted by cjPhilly

Wow. I probably should have expected a little outcry at my comments. I'm replying here but if I need to take this elsewhere, someone please let me know. I do feel the need to clarify some misconceptions.



You obviously fail to grasp the dynamics of pricing in the supply and demand equation. As your observation points out, curb space is in HIGH demand, because it is very convenient and priced very low. The most logical and effective way to encourage turnover of parking spaces and increase availability is to INCREASE the parking rates/cost.



And I suggest you remove your head from ideological bubble. I wholeheartedly agree that additionally subway lines could dramatically improve mobility within the city. The absolute fact of the matter is that this will not change much in the next 25 or so years. If you know anything about the transportation planning and funding process, you'll probably agree this is generous. Also, I would like to point out that 70% of Center City's workforce uses public transit to get to work. Things might not be as dire as you make them out to be, as least for a couple of hundred thousand residents of the region.

What I detest about your comments and other similar ones is that it absolves people of responsibility for their own choices. We (the City) shouldn't have to subsidize the convenience of on-street parking for anyone (suburban or city residents). People choose to live where they do, for a variety of reasons. If you choose to live far away from transit, you can pay to park more on-street, or you could make the effort to drive to the nearest train station. Or you could move. Or you could never come to Center City. The fact that you have to drive into the City is a result of your own actions; so accept the consequences.

On another note, I'm not defending the price of off-street parking. $27 for three hours is a lot, and theoretically, yes, short-term parking in garages should be priced lower. I know the city is working with both the PPA and private operators to make that so. Obviously, the city has little control over both.

Lastly, the PPA is a STATE agency. For years now the PPA has been run by Harrisburg. And in terms of what happens with the revenues, the first $25 million in net revenue goes to the City general fund. Anything over that goes directly to the school district. So raising the rates is not (primarily) a scam by the city to rake in more cash.

[SpongeG]

thanks for the map/info posts

[ichigo]

I have to disagree with you. I think the most logical solution is to increase supply and not the prices. Increasing prices will do little but make people (like me) complain about it and little to increase turnover of meter parking and here is why. Within past few year city had such great additions as Cira Center, Comcast and possibly new American Commerce Center. All of this construction brings more and more commuters and residents into the city. All of those people have to park somewhere, so no matter how much you increase the parking rates it will not solve the problem. Eventually some of those business will be driven away because people will be tired of parking and rail situation.

[DocAwesome]

Originally Posted by ichigo

I have to disagree with you. I think the most logical solution is to increase supply and not the prices. Increasing prices will do little but make people (like me) complain about it and little to increase turnover of meter parking and here is why. Within past few year city had such great additions as Cira Center, Comcast and possibly new American Commerce Center. All of this construction brings more and more commuters and residents into the city. All of those people have to park somewhere, so no matter how much you increase the parking rates it will not solve the problem. Eventually some of those business will be driven away because people will be tired of parking and rail situation.

Point taken. However, do you mean increase supply on on-street parking, or parking in general? Because from my experience, the former really isn't feasible on anything bigger than a spot by spot basis, and the latter doesn't seem to be an issue currently.

[pwp]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

As with Chicago, Philadelphia really isn't dense enough to support anything other than radial rail lines emanating from a dense employment core. Actually, few places in the world are dense enough to support cross-town, intracity, non-CBD rail lines.

I would disagree. Better intra-city transportation should spur the development that ultimately leads to higher density. The Market-Frankford El runs underneath Market St in downtown Philadelphia. This corridor (or the areas directly adjacent to it) represents the most developed and dense part of the city. The same can be said of the Broad St subway for at least part of it's length.

If a business is located near a public transit stop in an urban area, employees would be tempted to relocate to areas more easily accessible to their employer. Therefore you could assume they'd move closer to a transit stop on the same line/network. This would contribute to density in my opinion.