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.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,203,526 times
Reputation: 2925
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
Maybe I've been unlucky. The last time I was in Philly was last year and the cabs I was able to hail were all of the old crown vic/gypsy cab variety (yes guys have card readers...but tore up seats, a rundown get up, and no customer handled card reader - you must give them your card to scan on their smart phone reader after they complain to you about not having cash). I like how Boston almost achieves a fairly uniform appearance with its cabs (and it appears to me at least to be about the newest fleet), which I like (kind of European in that sense).
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
I like that.
Yea, I hate city cabs not being uniform in color. Philly has like green/white, maroon/blue, black etc.. That's why I like cities like London or NYC. It makes hailing easier and it just looks cleaner.
-- suggestions that a big city's opting for LRT and not HRT is not manly or macho (my words) is absurd. Given the funding realities with the Feds these days, a good LRT alternative, esp one with significant grade separation elements, can be highly effective... in some cases, the equal of HRT.
-- Philly is the equal of Chicago, maybe slightly better, all things taken equally such as size, density, typography, etc. I love the L, but the L is archaic in many ways: outdoor exposed platforms, too many at-grade intersections and junctions and, in the case of the Red Line north, too many too-closely spaced stations which hamper speed... Also, there are many areas of Chicago that rely on bus connections to the L or, like the Navy Pier area, close in Lake North and some other areas, where L connection is simply non-existent and buses are the only option.
Also, despite it's operational flaws, the Philly commuter rail system runs rings around Metra. Metra is overwhelmingly diesel, operates out of 4 downtown terminals and has zero through running. SEPTA regional rail, with it's fully electric status and the through running with the Center City commuter tunnel, is structured as a giant rapid transit system that allows commuter rail riders flexibility and convenience that is unparalleled in this country...
... btw, while I've knocked SEPTA for it's hourly service on lines (accept the main ex-Reading trunk line from Center City to Jenkintown and Glenside that is as close to rapid transit as any other portion), METRA runs a 2-hour frequency on Sundays for many lines, including Metra Electric, which is even worse than Philly.
NYC does have light rail. It isn't the main mode of rail transit, to be sure, but HBLR + Newark City Subway have strong ridership, and HBLR is being expanded.
And it's fairly high quality light rail, as it's 90% grade separated, with large segments running in subways or on elevated track. It isn't a bus on tracks stopping in traffic like much of the light rail in the U.S.
Yes, that is true but keep in mind that I didn't list light rail as a con for NYC.
A city not having a lot of a lesser mode of transit (light rail vs. heavy rail, bus vs. light rail, etc.) because it has a lot of the higher-capacity mode of transit is not a bad thing at all.
-- suggestions that a big city's opting for LRT and not HRT is not manly or macho (my words) is absurd. Given the funding realities with the Feds these days, a good LRT alternative, esp one with significant grade separation elements, can be highly effective... in some cases, the equal of HRT.
Yeah, a couple posters took my statements about light rail vs heavy rail out of context, so it wasn't even worth replying to some of them.
Quote:
-- Philly is the equal of Chicago, maybe slightly better, all things taken equally such as size, density, typography, etc. I love the L, but the L is archaic in many ways: outdoor exposed platforms, too many at-grade intersections and junctions and, in the case of the Red Line north, too many too-closely spaced stations which hamper speed... Also, there are many areas of Chicago that rely on bus connections to the L or, like the Navy Pier area, close in Lake North and some other areas, where L connection is simply non-existent and buses are the only option.
As far as overall transit is concerned, I think they are a lot closer than people give them credit for. The only thing Chicago does a significantly better job than Philly is its subway system but even with that said, Philly still has one of the best subway systems in the country. I would say it's definitely in the top 5 for best subway systems in America.
Quote:
Also, despite it's operational flaws, the Philly commuter rail system runs rings around Metra. Metra is overwhelmingly diesel, operates out of 4 downtown terminals and has zero through running. Septa regional rail, with it's full electric status and the through running with the Center City commuter tunnel, is structured as a giant rapid transit system that allows commuter rail riders flexibility and convenience that is unparalleled in this country...
... btw, while I've knocked SEPTA for it's hourly service on lines (accept the main ex-Reading trunk line from Center City to Jenkintown and Glenside that is as close to rapid transit as any other portion), METRA runs a 2-hour frequency on Sundays for many lines, including Metra Electric, which is even worse than Philly.
Philly certainly has better commuter rail service than Chicago when it comes to servicing the city. I think Chicago has better commuter rail service in its suburbs.
Philly certainly has better commuter rail service than Chicago when it comes to servicing the city. I think Chicago has better commuter rail service in its suburbs.
I totally agree in general that Philly isn't given nearly enough credit vis-a-vis Chicago but Metra is far and away ahead of SEPTA Regional Rail in terms of ridership and usage, which is just about all that really matters to me.
Calgary has a very good transit system and when you consider it only has 1.25 million, it is light years ahead of most systems in NA and compares well to European cities. It's 60km LRT system carries 330,000 passengers a day, the highest in NA, and it has an excellent bus system.
Calgary has a very good transit system and when you consider it only has 1.25 million, it is light years ahead of most systems in NA and compares well to European cities. It's 60km LRT system carries 330,000 passengers a day, the highest in NA, and it has an excellent bus system.
Agreed. I just visited for the first time a week ago and it was an awesome city (at least in the summertime). One of the main reasons I've wanted to visit is because of the high transit ridership for such a small metro.
I totally agree in general that Philly isn't given nearly enough credit vis-a-vis Chicago but Metra is far and away ahead of SEPTA Regional Rail in terms of ridership and usage, which is just about all that really matters to me.
I disagree. For one thing, I don't judge the quality of a transit system solely on how many people ride it because there are a lot of factors that influence ridership. For one thing, Chicago's region is much larger and more sprawling than Philly's. Even though Philly has tons of suburbs and its suburban region is large, Philly's suburbs don't sprawl the way Chicago's do. While both cities developed commuter rail back in the mid 19th century, Chicago's suburban region expanded more along a much a larger network of freeways, toll-roads and wider main streets which lent themselves to big box stores, strip malls and the like. Part of it is Chicagoland's pancake flat geography which more lends itself to sprawl. Philly's suburban region, on the other hand, is far more hilly, even borderline mountainous in areas. Thier suburban towns are also often quite old and historic, many developing during Colonial times -- the railroads extended to these towns while, in turn, sprouting other towns along the rails.
Because Philly's roadways and freeways are much less developed than Chicago's (to the ongoing angst of many Philadelphians), many Philly burbs have a country, rural feeling about them that Chicago's don't. Philly's burbs are more European in that development tends to still cluster tightly around the commuter train stations leaving more natural space in between. Many suburban streets outside Philadelphia, even in the close-in suburbs, are narrow country lanes which can be incredibly frustrating to navigate, esp during rush hour.
Also I could never say Metra is better than SEPTA regional rail. Metra's rail lines lack connectivity; they have 4 separate terminals in Chicago's loop area, and even these, like Union Station and Randolph Street/Millennium Center don't directly connect with L lines and are several blocks away from them. SEPTA's fully electrified system not only is fully unified, but flows through Center City with 4 different stations (some say 5 including Temple University which is a couple miles north of downtown). So not only does SEPTA distribute it's passengers through Center City, SEPTA allows for through suburb-to-suburb (and suburb-to-airport) commutes that Metra does not; this kind of commuting is extremely cumbersome on Metra. ... I'll take a rail system's convenience and ease of use anyday over it's sheer ridership numbers.
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.
