What’s the feasibility of tunneling the Subway-Surface trolley lined further east instead of doing a loop? (Philadelphia: how much, neighborhood)
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.
It's used to get people from the suburbs into the city and from the city into the suburbs. People don't use it to get around in the city. It's the smaller version of its PATH big-brother. It may not operate exactly like a commuter line, but it's used largely for suburban commuters (whether that be work or leisure). You wouldn't count it as a subway line in Philadelphia for the same reasons you don't count the PATH lines in New York. Therefor, Philadelphia still only has two (or two and a half if you count the B-R Spur) subway lines. The smallest peer of Boston has three subway lines with significantly higher ridership then Philadelphia but a smaller city population. It also has light rail with considerably higher ridership then our trolley lines. Compared to our piers, we really lack in rail infrastructure and usage within the city.
We really do shine with our regional rail though, and I'd argue we are second only to the NJT/LIRR/MNR behemoth 90 miles to our north. But I think it's fair to say we really do have inadequate heavy rail to get around the city with.
Oh, but we DO count PATH as rapid transit and not commuter rail. It too has rapid transit operating characteristics. You can find a list of all the "heavy rail" systems on page 32 of the annual APTA (American Public Transportation Association) Fact Book.Both PATH and PATCO are on this list.
And Boston has a Second Subway Era hybrid system grafted onto a First Subway Era one.*
We should also not forget that when the First Subway Era systems were built (four: Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia), some of the territory the subway lines reached then was undeveloped. So those lines also served the "suburbs" of their day. The Corona (later Flushing) line in New York was a good example - and so is the Broad Street Subway here; much of the area around Olney station was still fields when work on the subway resumed in 1925.
IOW, heavy rail rapid transit has served both a circulator and a commuter function from the start as well; the only difference is that our suburbs have moved further out and what were once considered suburbs are now thought of as city neighborhoods.
*The systems built in the First Subway Era (1897-1943) have denser coverage in their urban cores (Philadelphia a notable exception here) than in their hinterlands, but they were built both to serve as urban circulators and to speed travel from distant points in the city to the center. The Second Subway Era systems (1969/1971-1993 for heavy rail/present if you include light metros) serve more of a commuter than an urban circulator function thanks to lines that extend well into the suburbs of their cities.
Oh, but we DO count PATH as rapid transit and not commuter rail. It too has rapid transit operating characteristics. You can find a list of all the "heavy rail" systems on page 32 of the annual APTA (American Public Transportation Association) Fact Book.Both PATH and PATCO are on this list.
And Boston has a Second Subway Era hybrid system grafted onto a First Subway Era one.*
We should also not forget that when the First Subway Era systems were built (four: Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia), some of the territory the subway lines reached then was undeveloped. So those lines also served the "suburbs" of their day. The Corona (later Flushing) line in New York was a good example - and so is the Broad Street Subway here; much of the area around Olney station was still fields when work on the subway resumed in 1925.
IOW, heavy rail rapid transit has served both a circulator and a commuter function from the start as well; the only difference is that our suburbs have moved further out and what were once considered suburbs are now thought of as city neighborhoods.
*The systems built in the First Subway Era (1897-1943) have denser coverage in their urban cores (Philadelphia a notable exception here) than in their hinterlands, but they were built both to serve as urban circulators and to speed travel from distant points in the city to the center. The Second Subway Era systems (1969/1971-1993 for heavy rail/present if you include light metros) serve more of a commuter than an urban circulator function thanks to lines that extend well into the suburbs of their cities.
Philly 100% needs a more robust series of lines that cross east/west across broad st. Honestly light rail/street car would probably be sufficient if you stick with 10m or less headways. But you want to use them to funnel traffic from buses into them, and then have them funnel traffic into the heavy rail.
I'd put light rail on Spring Garden St, Cecile B. Moore Ave, Diamond St. W. Lehigh Ave.
Reactivate the light rail on Germantown Ave and you'll probably see a ton of growth in the retail over there.
Convert the regional rail up on the Manayunk, Chestnut Hill West, Chestnut Hill East lines into heavy rail with ~20 minute headways or less instead of the hour long we get for large portions of the day.
Link up all 3 of those lines to a combined transit hub in North Philly station that allows for access to the BSL, all 3 lines, and link up the Landsdale and Warminster lines there too (those can probably stay as regional rail since they aren't really as busy and they cover enormous distances.)
West Philly has the excellent backbones in the form of the street car lines and MFL and really only needs some light rail crossing it N/S at around 52nd St to let people funnel into the MFL quicker for those in the further west parts. The light rail needs to be modernized out there where possible to be wheelchair accessible and have dedicated lanes on the streets, and priority at intersections.
South Philly could do with some light rail crossing E/W along Christian St. and Snyder Ave to help feed into the BSL, and also link up the big box stores in the SE of the city to the transit system better. You could loop that around through Oregon Ave as well to cover all of the stores.
Oh, but we DO count PATH as rapid transit and not commuter rail. It too has rapid transit operating characteristics. You can find a list of all the "heavy rail" systems on page 32 of the annual APTA (American Public Transportation Association) Fact Book.Both PATH and PATCO are on this list.
And Boston has a Second Subway Era hybrid system grafted onto a First Subway Era one.*
We should also not forget that when the First Subway Era systems were built (four: Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia), some of the territory the subway lines reached then was undeveloped. So those lines also served the "suburbs" of their day. The Corona (later Flushing) line in New York was a good example - and so is the Broad Street Subway here; much of the area around Olney station was still fields when work on the subway resumed in 1925.
IOW, heavy rail rapid transit has served both a circulator and a commuter function from the start as well; the only difference is that our suburbs have moved further out and what were once considered suburbs are now thought of as city neighborhoods.
*The systems built in the First Subway Era (1897-1943) have denser coverage in their urban cores (Philadelphia a notable exception here) than in their hinterlands, but they were built both to serve as urban circulators and to speed travel from distant points in the city to the center. The Second Subway Era systems (1969/1971-1993 for heavy rail/present if you include light metros) serve more of a commuter than an urban circulator function thanks to lines that extend well into the suburbs of their cities.
Okay, semantics. The point is PATCO and PATH really aren't used to get around the city, but rather into and out of. My point still stands that Philly is really lacking in heavy rail coverage for travel within the city.
Okay, semantics. The point is PATCO and PATH really aren't used to get around the city, but rather into and out of. My point still stands that Philly is really lacking in heavy rail coverage for travel within the city.
True, but it's not just "semantics."
The terms for each mode, and their classifications, are based on their operating characteristics and not the type of travel they largely facilitate.
Functionally speaking, every one of the systems I call "Second Subway Era" save two - those in Washington and Los Angeles - mainly funnel commuters from distant points into a city and do very little around-the-city circulation. You might want to look at the map of the MARTA system in Atlanta, for instance; relative to that city, its main lines function as spine lines like SEPTA's two heavy rail lines in the city do.
(Those systems, by the way, are Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco/Oakland and Washington. The systems in Buffalo, Dallas and San Diego, plus the one being built now in Seattle, I refer to as "light metros" to emphasize the ways in which these "light rail" systems function and are built more like rapid transit - but their operating characteristics put them in the "light rail" camp.)
They may serve a primarily commuter function, but no one calls any of these systems "commuter rail." Nor do any transit-industry people or transit geeks (like me) refer to the legacy PATH and semi-legacy (it's a Second Subway Era line grafted onto a First Subway Era line that connected the city centers of Philadelphia and Camden) PATCO using that term.
SEPTA Regional Rail actually has one operating characteristic in particular - closely spaced stations - that makes it an excellent candidate for running more like rapid transit. And the suggestion just made that the two Chestnut Hill branches and the Manayunk/Norristown branch be operated at shorter headways round the clock with "heavy rail" equipment is a recognition of this fact. (And this isn't the first time or place someone has made this suggestion; a number of transit policy wonks have suggested the same thing over the past couple of decades, even going so far as to recommend physically tying the Chestnut Hill branches into the Broad Street Subway.)
a number of transit policy wonks have suggested the same thing over the past couple of decades, even going so far as to recommend physically tying the Chestnut Hill branches into the Broad Street Subway.
I had never heard that idea before. Thinking about it, it doesn't sound far fetched at all.
Something else I'd like to see is connecting the BSL stations directions underground. You can cut off a good 5 minutes off of everyone's travel time by connecting both northbound and southbound platforms (and their corresponding exits) through a tunnel so that you can exit or enter on whatever side of Broad Street you need to. You'd no longer need to wait at the cross walk to jump to the other side.
It could also speed up travel for bus/cars along Broadstreet as well since you'd spend less time with pedestrians crossing along the entire street.
It's used to get people from the suburbs into the city and from the city into the suburbs. People don't use it to get around in the city. It's the smaller version of its PATH big-brother. It may not operate exactly like a commuter line, but it's used largely for suburban commuters (whether that be work or leisure). You wouldn't count it as a subway line in Philadelphia for the same reasons you don't count the PATH lines in New York. Therefor, Philadelphia still only has two (or two and a half if you count the B-R Spur) subway lines. The smallest peer of Boston has three subway lines with significantly higher ridership then Philadelphia but a smaller city population. It also has light rail with considerably higher ridership then our trolley lines. Compared to our piers, we really lack in rail infrastructure and usage within the city.
We really do shine with our regional rail though, and I'd argue we are second only to the NJT/LIRR/MNR behemoth 90 miles to our north. But I think it's fair to say we really do have inadequate heavy rail to get around the city with.
And 1 of Bostons 3 Subway lines (Blue Line) was a trolley until it was converted in the 1940's. So Philly's about 70 years behind the ball with that one.
And 1 of Bostons 3 Subway lines (Blue Line) was a trolley until it was converted in the 1940's. So Philly's about 70 years behind the ball with that one.
1923 was the year the East Boston Tunnel was converted from a trolley tunnel to a subway line. The line was extended from Maverick Square to Orient Heights in 1950 and Wonderland in Revere Beach four years after that.
The thing is, Boston still has a trolley subway too, remember - the Green Line, the oldest subway in the country, which has four branches. So this city isn't "behind the ball" on anything: light rail remains a viable mode. Not to mention that several cities have built "modern streetcar" lines as well, my hometown of Kansas City among them, over the last decade or so.
I would love to see the trolley lines extended but given how expensive creating subway tunnels are, I don't think it would be a great discussion economically when it comes to transit expansion for the city. The cost could easily reach over 1 billion dollars and to spend that much money on light rail and not heavy rail like the MFL or BSL, so it wouldn't be worth it. Philly needs heavy rail subway expansion first before any type of light rail subway expansion.
Right, I'm not saying it should be the first priority, but asking whether it should even have a place on the road map.
To me, first priority is definitely running the Regional Rail more frequently and more like rapid transit (like the way that RER in Paris operates or U-Bahn systems in German cities does) as that's the lowest hanging fruit at this point and would be the most beneficial.
The trolleys are ugly and old fashioned. They should get rid of them. I wonder why New York and Chicago got rid of their trolleys but not Philly. If they built 1 heavy rail line in Southwest Philadelphia, it could probably replace 2 or 3 trolley lines. That would take those old-fangled tracks off the streets. I also feel that the people who are less likely to use public transit, are even more unlikely to want to ride the trolley. It's just small, old fashioned, and embarrassing.
Disagree on them being ugly. As for old-fashioned, that's dependent on the rolling stock being used. There are some very modern light rail vehicles around the world and there's existing trackage and power for these routes, so tearing them up would be a terrible idea. Berlin and many other cities with ample heavy rail lines are also expanding their light rail lines.
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.
