Why is the subway so small and poorly maintained? (Philadelphia: city hall, transfer)

[MB1562]

So I've lived in the Philly area the past 4 years, and I can't help but notice how small and poorly maintained the El and Broad Street lines are in comparison to other cities. Why does a city with 1.5M people only have 2 subway lines that don't reach even most of the city when a city like Boston with 1/3 of the population has 5 lines that stretch all over? Granted I'm not expecting it to be New York, but why is Philly seemingly so reliant on buses and trollies and not subways?

Also, most of the stations seem in shambles. I was in City Hall station a couple weeks ago and it was the filthiest, most neglected-looking station I had ever seen in any city in the country. You would think that it being a major station and a connection to the El that it would at least be maintained.

[Angus215]

How many cities have an extensive subway system? Very few. When you factor in the SEPTA Regional rail, which is quite large, the coverage isn't bad. But, sure, it would be great if there were more rail lines in and around Center City. In regards to the stations, they arent much different than New York's in terms of cleanliness or being updated. . . except you have more homeless living in them in NYC.

[RightonWalnut]

A few things.

One, Philly has three subway lines. The Market-Frankford Line, the Broad Street Line and the PATCO Highspeed Line.

Two, what are you comparing Philly's subway system to exactly? I would argue only NYC, DC, Chicago and Boston have better subway systems than Philly. Los Angeles, Baltmore, Cleveland and San Francisco have small systems as well. On top of that, no other cities in the US even have subway systems. Houston has a population of 2.1 million and has virtually no public transit system. You know that right?

Three, Philly has one of the best public transit systems in the country, and while the subway system is smaller, Philly has a huge extensive regional rail system, as well as extensive trolley and bus coverage.

Lastly, SEPTA is severely under funded which helps explain the lack of repair on the stations and the relatively smaller subway system. They were only receiving $300 million a year in funding, but they now have new funding thankfully and are receiving about $600 million a year now. So hopefully, some things can change. To help you explain how underfunded they STILL are however, MBTA in Boston receives over $1 billion in funding.

[MB1562]

Originally Posted by Angus215

How many cities have an extensive subway system? Very few. When you factor in the SEPTA Regional rail, which is quite large, the coverage isn't bad. But, sure, it would be great if there were more rail lines in and around Center City. In regards to the stations, they arent much different than New York's in terms of cleanliness or being updated. . . except you have more homeless living in them in NYC.

I disagree over the cleanliness of NYC subways. Sure they are far from perfect, but even the ones in the poorer parts of the city (Bronx, upper Harlem, etc.) are generally at least semi-upkept. I would just think that with City Hall being the main station in the system with a transfer and such that it would be better up-kept. I love Philadelphia and can't wait to actually move into the city, but it's subway has a very long way to go before it catches up to Boston or Washington in my opinion.

[rotodome]

Summersm343 is right on all points.

The only thing in the OP that resonates with me is that City Hall station really has been quite neglected for a station that is arguably the hub of the subway system.

[MB1562]

Originally Posted by Summersm343

A few things.

One, Philly has three subway lines. The Market-Frankford Line, the Broad Street Line and the PATCO Highspeed Line.

Two, what are you comparing Philly's subway system to exactly? I would argue only NYC, DC, Chicago and Boston have better subway systems than Philly. Los Angeles, Baltmore, Cleveland and San Francisco have small systems as well. On top of that, no other cities in the US even have subway systems. Houston has a population of 2.1 million and has virtually no public transit system. You know that right?

Three, Philly has one of the best public transit systems in the country, and while the subway system is smaller, Philly has a huge extensive regional rail system, as well as extensive trolley and bus coverage.

Lastly, SEPTA is severely under funded which helps explain the lack of repair on the stations and the relatively smaller subway system. They were only receiving $300 million a year in funding, but they now have new funding thankfully and are receiving about $600 million a year now. So hopefully, some things can change. To help you explain how underfunded they STILL are however, MBTA in Boston receives over $1 billion in funding.

True, I forgot about PATCO. I am comparing it to the other East Coast cities, which minus New York, I think is a fair comparison. My point was, I was wondering why Philly, with almost three times the population of Boston or DC, had a smaller and far more poorly maintained subway system. I spent a lot of time as a kid riding on the T and MTA in Boston and New York, so I was surprised that a city as big as Philadelphia had such poor coverage. Although I was not aware that SEPTA is so underfunded, which explains a lot.

And yes, I am well aware that outside the Northeast subway systems are either minimal or nonexistent. But those cities were not really built with public transit in mind, where as Boston, New York, Philly, and DC were. There is far less of a "car-dependant" culture here in the urban Northeast then compared to the South, Texas, or the West Coast which was why I was surprised at Philly's subways.

Again, I AM NOT bashing Philadelphia in any way. I am a transplant to the area and absolutely love living here, but I think it is worth pointing out that, in comparison, subway service is lacking.

[rotodome]

Originally Posted by MB1562

I disagree over the cleanliness of NYC subways. Sure they are far from perfect, but even the ones in the poorer parts of the city (Bronx, upper Harlem, etc.) are generally at least semi-upkept. I would just think that with City Hall being the main station in the system with a transfer and such that it would be better up-kept. I love Philadelphia and can't wait to actually move into the city, but it's subway has a very long way to go before it catches up to Boston or Washington in my opinion.

Hey, let me take you on a tour of the East Broadway station in Manhattan, or the 15th St station in Brooklyn (Park Slope - a pretty fancy nabe) - just for examples of total dumps! Most every station on the Broad street line looks better than those.

(yeah the MTA does have ~500 stations to maintain. and they definitely are always renovating at great cost, so it takes several years to get around to them all...and yeah they're digging huge tunnels for new lines...but a lot of the existing stations are still pretty decrepit)

[RightonWalnut]

Originally Posted by MB1562

True, I forgot about PATCO. I am comparing it to the other East Coast cities, which minus New York, I think is a fair comparison. My point was, I was wondering why Philly, with almost three times the population of Boston or DC, had a smaller and far more poorly maintained subway system. I spent a lot of time as a kid riding on the T and MTA in Boston and New York, so I was surprised that a city as big as Philadelphia had such poor coverage. Although I was not aware that SEPTA is so underfunded, which explains a lot.

It has to do with funding. SEPTA is just severely underfunded. DC is also the capitol of the US, so obviously the US government is going to dump crazy cash into a public transit system there. They can thank the US taxpayers for the system they have built.

Boston tends to be better well off historically than Philly. Philly still has more urban issues than Boston and obviously MBTA just has SO much more funding than Philly it's crazy that MBTA has been operating with $700 million more annually than SEPTA and will still be operating with $400 million more annually. It's quite astonishing that this much of SEPTA's system has remained in tact at all with the minimal amount of funding they were receiving.

[rotodome]

The thing about DC metro is that it's comparatively brand new. It's not so much that it hasn't had funding/maintenance issues.

[NEMESIS1]

Actually, if you look at the numbers your info is incorrect.

MBTA rapid transit lines are only about 1 mile longer than Septa.
List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While if you include light rail, Septa is about 40 miles longer than MBTA
List of United States light rail systems by ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia