Third Subway Line in Philly?

[MB1562]

Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly

When I used to live in the city, I would use the PATCO frequently to go to work in South Jersey. So it was certainly useful for me. It's no different than someone using the MFL to commute to Delaware County for work. Both the PATCO and the MFL both serve suburbanites.

You and a very few other people. One little bit of personal, anecdotal evidence doesn't change the facts. The same goes for the MFL. Just because a few suburbanites use it to get into the city does not change the fact THE VAST MAJORITY of trips are made by Philadelphians to get around Philadelphia.

I'm not gonna change your mind, and you aren't going to change mind, so anything further is pointless.

[gwillyfromphilly]

Originally Posted by MB1562

You and a very few other people. One little bit of personal, anecdotal evidence doesn't change the facts. The same goes for the MFL. Just because a few suburbanites use it to get into the city does not change the fact THE VAST MAJORITY of trips are made by Philadelphians to get around Philadelphia.

I'm not gonna change your mind, and you aren't going to change mind, so anything further is pointless.

I guess so but I have the facts on my side that proves Philly already has a 3rd subway line.

[MB1562]

Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly

I guess so but I have the facts on my side that proves Philly already has a 3rd subway line.

Congratulations.

[Pilot1]

Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly

I guess so but I have the facts on my side that proves Philly already has a 3rd subway line.

Is that the one that goes through the Indian burial ground? The haunted one?

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

Seriously: Don't be so certain about that.

I'm a transit geek, as my posting handle should make clear, but many lay folk do consider any rapid transit line serving a metropolitan center as a subway line, regardless of how it's used within the metro.

No Chicagoan would omit the Skokie Swift, for instance, from the list of Chicago metro/subway lines, even though it serves as a suburban feeder to the Red Line. Is it a line Chicagoans use to move around Chicago? Clearly not. Is it a line Chicagoans use to move around the region, and does it operate like rapid transit? Yes. Then it's not "commuter rail," even if that is its primary function.

Were the Regional Rail network to be converted to high-platform boarding with off-board fare collection (SEPTA Key takes care of the latter) and operated at 15-20 minute headways or less throughout the service day, many would consider it a "subway" or "metro" - it already has unusually close station spacing.

I could go on but won't right now.

Chicago doesn't need to feel embarrassed about a lack of subway lines though. If they compare themselves to NYC which is 3.1 times bigger population wise and has 36 subway lines, then Chicago should have 11. They at least have 8 which is pretty close to 11.

On the other hand, Chicago is only 1.6 times bigger than Philadelphia, but Philadelphia only has 1 quarter the number of subway lines as Chicago when it should have 2/3 the number, so Philly should have at least 5 lines. Absolutely Pathetic.

And I don't buy the crap that Philly makes up for its severe lack of rapid transit lines with trolleys and commuter rail. In a city as large as Philly (3rd largest until 1960), trolleys only should have been used as a primary source of transit until enough subways were built, and definitely should have all been stripped up and scrapped by the 1960's. And commuter rail can't operate the same as rapid transit and it doesn't.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

enough subways were built, and definitely should have all been stripped up and scrapped by the 1960's. And commuter rail can't operate the same as rapid transit and it doesn't.

There's a reason I don't use the phrase "commuter rail" to describe most suburban rail networks:

The term is partly misleading.

Yes, the bulk of the patrons use it to head into city jobs in the morning and return from them in the afternoon - but so do most users of any form of mass transit in this country. The ratio of work commuters to other riders is higher on suburban/regional rail, but journey-to/from-work trips account for at least 51 percent of all other transit trips as well.

And many of our suburban/regional rail networks operate service in both directions throughout the day, at semi-decent frequencies (half-hourly or even better) in several cities, including at least one Regional Rail line here.

On the ex-Reading trunk line from Glenside inward, trains operate at 15-minute headways or less from Jenkintown inward to Center City. That IMO puts the lie to your statement that "commuter rail can't operate the same as rapid transit."

In Chicago, the Metra Electric (ex-Illinois Central) lines also operate at relatively close headways - and all the stations have high platforms and off-board fare collection. There's no technical issue that would prevent those lines from operating at, say, five-minute headways. (EMUs accelerate quickly enough that they could run at even shorter headways.)

Light rail has its uses too, especially on routes that don't have the traffic to justify full-blown heavy rapid transit.

Back to school for you.

[MB1562]

Rapid Transit Usage:

NYC Population: 8,398,748 (2018)
Average Weekday Ridership: 5,861,704 (including PATH)
Per Person Ridership: ~0.70

Chicago Population: 2,705,598 (2018)
Average Weekday Ridership: 767,730
Per Person Ridership: ~0.28

Boston Population: 694,583 (2018)
Average Weekday Ridership: 552,500
Per Person Ridership: ~0.80

Philadelphia Population: 1,580,563 (2017)
Average Weekday Ridership: 348,764 (including PATCO...)
Per Person Ridership: ~0.22

Washington Population:702,445 (2018)
Average Weekday Ridership: 626,423
Per Person Ridership: ~0.89

Not exactly apples-to-apples, but some interesting numbers to look at.

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

There's a reason I don't use the phrase "commuter rail" to describe most suburban rail networks:

The term is partly misleading.

Yes, the bulk of the patrons use it to head into city jobs in the morning and return from them in the afternoon - but so do most users of any form of mass transit in this country. The ratio of work commuters to other riders is higher on suburban/regional rail, but journey-to/from-work trips account for at least 51 percent of all other transit trips as well.

And many of our suburban/regional rail networks operate service in both directions throughout the day, at semi-decent frequencies (half-hourly or even better) in several cities, including at least one Regional Rail line here.

On the ex-Reading trunk line from Glenside inward, trains operate at 15-minute headways or less from Jenkintown inward to Center City. That IMO puts the lie to your statement that "commuter rail can't operate the same as rapid transit."

In Chicago, the Metra Electric (ex-Illinois Central) lines also operate at relatively close headways - and all the stations have high platforms and off-board fare collection. There's no technical issue that would prevent those lines from operating at, say, five-minute headways. (EMUs accelerate quickly enough that they could run at even shorter headways.)

Light rail has its uses too, especially on routes that don't have the traffic to justify full-blown heavy rapid transit.

Back to school for you.

I see. Thank you for the lesson.