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.
checking Manayunk to Center City, google maps suggests the 27 bus rather than the train. Bus looks a bit slower [Bajan probably can say how much worse it is reality] but frequency is much higher. The 27 bus uses I-95 for much of the way so its speed is probably comparable outside of rush hour. Probably cheaper, too. Perhaps a downward cycle occurs: few take the train because the bus comes more often, train frequency declines, since few take the train.
That's definitely true. I think commuter rail is perfectly fine for what it's intended for: commuting. But I don't think I've ever taken the train to Center City because the 23 runs so frequently. And as you said, it's also cheaper.
And that's not I-95 the 27 is riding along, btw. It's the Schuylkill Expressway.
I was in West Philly recently and used the trolleys a bunch of times. A bit on the slow side, but I found them pleasant and convenient, though I didn't take it that far out (about 47th street).
This is why I don't like putting all "rail" into the same category. People often say that rail can support densities that buses can't. That very well may be true. But that doesn't mean all forms of rail transit can support higher density levels than buses.
This is why I don't like putting all "rail" into the same category. People often say that rail can support densities that buses can't. That very well may be true. But that doesn't mean all forms of rail transit can support higher density levels than buses.
Street trollies seem to have few advantages (and many disadvantages) over buses. It'd be a different matter if they ran in a separate ROW.
Street trollies seem to have few advantages (and many disadvantages) over buses. It'd be a different matter if they ran in a separate ROW.
Well, people cite a number of advantages the streetcar/trolley has over the bus.
1. It's "permanent"
2. It has higher capacity
3. It promotes economic development
4. It's better for the environment
5. It's a smoother ride
6. It draws "choice" riders who won't ride a bus
Well, people cite a number of advantages the streetcar/trolley has over the bus.
1. It's "permanent"
2. It has higher capacity
3. It promotes economic development 4. It's better for the environment 5. It's a smoother ride
6. It draws "choice" riders who won't ride a bus
#4 is true, electric vehicles produce less emissions even if the energy consumption is the same (one giant power plant is more efficient than a tiny in vehicle plant, as well as electric engines are more efficient for stop and go operation). Also, the air pollution is moved elsewhere, the dirty emissions aren't where people live.
#5 The Philly streetcar felt smoother to me and a bit nicer than a bus. All things being equal, I'd take a streetcar over a bus, but it's not a huge factor for me.
#4 is true, electric vehicles produce less emissions even if the energy consumption is the same (one giant power plant is more efficient than a tiny in vehicle plant, as well as electric engines are more efficient for stop and go operation). Also, the air pollution is moved elsewhere, the dirty emissions aren't where people live.
Buses can run off electricity. That's not something unique about streetcars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
#5 The Philly streetcar felt smoother to me and a bit nicer than a bus. All things being equal, I'd take a streetcar over a bus, but it's not a huge factor for me.
That may be true. But the question is whether the smoother ride is worth the extra coin. A Mercedes Benz is smoother and nicer than both.
As a former Chicagoan who was a fan of the local rail transit (and frequent user of the L and the commuter lines) I am actually a bit blown away by how extenisve SEPTA is (+ the stuff in Jersey).
Philadelphia is a big city, but that system beats Bostons, and is probably on-par with Chicago.
Would you all say that for rail transit, its pretty much NYC area, Philadphia and Chicago, the Boston, then the "aslo-rans'?
Perosnally and with experience on all these six here is my take
1 NYC - the only truly grand system in the US
2 Chicago - while METRO in DC may be better pound for pound Chciago delivers on breadth
3 DC - The Metro is very good and expanding as a commuter rail of sorts. Also MD looks to be doing sme good things
4 Boston - Although the system is very similar in many ways to Philly its just a tad more user friendly and cleaner and better used
5 Philly - Comprehensive system. Misses on too much bus reliance and under utilized Regional Rail which could probably nearly triple capactiy with no changes
6 SF - High ridership but system has some flaws IMHO slow trollys in the core and BART as Heavy rail does a better job as a commuter line than a inner city subway
Perosnally and with experience on all these six here is my take
1 NYC - the only truly grand system in the US
2 Chicago - while METRO in DC may be better pound for pound Chciago delivers on breadth
3 DC - The Metro is very good and expanding as a commuter rail of sorts. Also MD looks to be doing sme good things
4 Boston - Although the system is very similar in many ways to Philly its just a tad more user friendly and cleaner and better used
5 Philly - Comprehensive system. Misses on too much bus reliance and under utilized Regional Rail which could probably nearly triple capactiy with no changes
6 SF - High ridership but system has some flaws IMHO slow trollys in the core and BART as Heavy rail does a better job as a commuter line than a inner city subway
Just some thoughts
I agree with this. I think Chicago and DC are extremely close, but I'd also give the edge to Chicago because it has express train service.
Philly's train system seemed surprisingly uncrowded around 5 pm. Quite a bit of empty seats. Part of the reason for Boston's higher numbers, I suspect is the greater center city employment numbers. Even though length is the same, for some reason Boston's system's feels like it has better coverage for some reason. It could definitely do better covering the southern part of the city, Somerville, and some green line sections could use some speed ups (signal priority).
Philly's train system seemed surprisingly uncrowded around 5 pm. Quite a bit of empty seats. Part of the reason for Boston's higher numbers, I suspect is the greater center city employment numbers. Even though length is the same, for some reason Boston's system's feels like it has better coverage for some reason. It could definitely do better covering the southern part of the city, Somerville, and some green line sections could use some speed ups (signal priority).
Maybe. But I also suspect that ridership may be higher in Boston because it has more Park and Rides.
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.
