Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I beg to differ when it comes to rating our mass transit systems. It seems like the MBTA does a better job when it comes to coverage of commuter rail to places such as Providence, Worcester, Lowell, Brockton, and Lawrence. Here, in Philly, you can't take the commuter train to Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, Reading, Lancaster (although there's Amtrak service), and West Chester.
It also seems like Boston has a better subway system and does a better job covering the entire city of Boston than the two line system we have here in Philly. I'm also jealous that the MBTA is expanding it's Green Line to Union Square in Somerville and all the way to Medford. In Philly, we tried to extend the subway to the Navy Yard and that hasn't even got off yet.
Bottom line, both systems are older systems, but Boston is a better system coming from a Philadelphian!
Boston does an abysmal job covering the city with much more tracks dedicated to suburbs than the southern 40% of the city with is more or less devoid of a subway system entirely.
Boston does an abysmal job covering the city with much more tracks dedicated to suburbs than the southern 40% of the city with is more or less devoid of a subway system entirely.
That’s why it’s the Massachusetts Bay Trabsportation Authority not the Boston Transportation Authority. (As it’s SE PA Transit Authority not Philadelphia)
It does a better job of connecting more people to more jobs regardless of whether they live in Boston or not.
And if you go City vs City Philly still has fewer miles/sq mile than Boston, and larger gaps since it’s a massive city.
That’s why it’s the Massachusetts Bay Trabsportation Authority not the Boston Transportation Authority. (As it’s SE PA Transit Authority not Philadelphia)
It does a better job of connecting more people to more jobs regardless of whether they live in Boston or not.
And if you go City vs City Philly still has fewer miles/sq mile than Boston, and larger gaps since it’s a massive city.
Well, yea that is the name and it is state run...and in part for that reason, it doesn't do a "great job of covering the entire city." That needs to be understood and stated here.
This poster said it does a great job of covering the entire city of Boston and went on to talk about Medford. Which falls in line with this portion of my comment "with much more tracks dedicated to suburbs than the southern 40% of the city with is more or less devoid of a subway system entirely."
Well, yea that is the name and it is state run...and in part for that reason, it doesn't do a "great job of covering the entire city." That needs to be understood and stated here.
This poster said it does a great job of covering the entire city of Boston and went on to talk about Medford. Which falls in line with this portion of my comment "with much more tracks dedicated to suburbs than the southern 40% of the city with is more or less devoid of a subway system entirely."
Even by your City definition, Philly has like 26.5 miles of heavy rail in a 134 sq mile city. Boston has 19 or so (7.5 Orange, 3.5 Blue, 8? red) in 48 sq miles.
Wouldn’t Boston thus do a better job of covering the city and Philly have very massive holes?
I would say overall Philadelphia's and Boston's public transit is on the same par.
Both are solid legacy systems, of similar infrastructure.
Boston has more heavy rail within its city limits.
But Philadelphia has far more light rail within its city limits. So it all really evens out.
And when you factor in bus, light rail and its unique high speed/light rail service in its suburbs, combined with the NJ side of transit.
Philadelphia has more miles overall. But it is neck and neck. Few people are aware of the PATCO or Norristown High Speed lines, which go far out into the suburbs as an alternative to commuter rail, in addition to Philadelphia having light rail service within the city and suburbs as well.
As I said, WMATA, BART, SEPTA and MBTA all are virtually the same in transit ridership and total miles covered by transit and the % of population who uses transit overall.
WMATA pulls ahead somewhat more than the other systems, but in total transit miles covered it falls in line for the most part and the system is mostly of the same size.
Boston's transit system leaves a lot to be desired. But, it is still probably better than Philly. It's a tougher call with DC. Boston's system is far older, but arguably more functional for getting around the core. DC's post-war system was really built to get people from the suburbs to their downtown office.
Even by your City definition, Philly has like 26.5 miles of heavy rail in a 134 sq mile city. Boston has 19 or so (7.5 Orange, 3.5 Blue, 8? red) in 48 sq miles.
Wouldn’t Boston thus do a better job of covering the city and Philly have very massive holes?
A better job than Philly but it’s not a great job at covering the entire city by any stretch of the imagination. There’s not “holes” in Boston it’s just one I’m giant hole south of Forest Hills( but really? Egleston) and west of Dot Ave.
MBTA is Better than SEPTA but doesn’t do a great job of covering the entire city. And generally serves residential neighborhoods poorly to the south
Boston's transit system leaves a lot to be desired. But, it is still probably better than Philly. It's a tougher call with DC. Boston's system is far older, but arguably more functional for getting around the core. DC's post-war system was really built to get people from the suburbs to their downtown office.
DCs is cleaner, faster, and more useful to city residents of more income levels because it’s is not as radial. If you don’t work in downtown Boston it’s does a poor job of connecting neighborhoods. DC has more and better transfer stations. Boston has some shabby stations and concourses I have always disliked.
Even by your City definition, Philly has like 26.5 miles of heavy rail in a 134 sq mile city. Boston has 19 or so (7.5 Orange, 3.5 Blue, 8? red) in 48 sq miles.
Wouldn’t Boston thus do a better job of covering the city and Philly have very massive holes?
Philly is geographically extremely North - South oriented, so you don’t need a lot a mass transit running East - West hence the disparity in city area:track length
Boston is more akin to DC or Chicago in which mass transit spreads radially from the core so you need more rail to reach more of the city relatively speaking
A better job than Philly but it’s not a great job at covering the entire city by any stretch of the imagination. There’s not “holes” in Boston it’s just one I’m giant hole south of Forest Hills( but really? Egleston) and west of Dot Ave.
MBTA is Better than SEPTA but doesn’t do a great job of covering the entire city. And generally serves residential neighborhoods poorly to the south
Depends on what you mean by "better."
In terms of rail coverage, no doubt it's better. But actually, Philadelphia has a hub-and-spoke system consisting of two spine lines, one of which follows the main north-south axis, the other of which follows the main east-west one, then heads north, then northeast. Trolley lines (akin to the Green Line in Boston) serve the southwest and part of West Philly, converging on the hub. Because the city is but on the grid, there's no doubt where the hub is — it's the station located at one edge of the city's central square. (Boston has four hub stations.) Many of us who know Philly transit history, however, do lament that we got only one-sixth of the subways the city said it would build back in 1913.
In terms of shape of the physical plant, they've traded places. SEPTA used to be worse, much worse, than the T, but the system has been brought up to a state of good repair over the decades since I moved here in 1983, while I understand the T has been allowed to deteriorate somewhat.
In terms of operations, well, there was that massive meltdown after a big snowstorm five years or so back up in Boston. I don't recall anything similar happening during or after the Blizzard of 1978. Granted, we haven't had a snowstorm that big in Philadephia in the last decade plus, but SEPTA manages to keep all of its service running during the ones we do have, and it did run service after a storm comparable to the 1978 one that whacked the city in 1993.
And I'd put SEPTA's very dense bus network up against the MBTA's any time. Our suburban service probably outclasses the MBTA's as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
