• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Cities with the best public trans

thewholething

Member
Messages
16
Points
1
If this has been talked about before, please let me know I'm curious as to what a lot of you have to say about this.

Ok here goes:

Poll Question: Which cities are best as far as public transportation is concerned? i.e. efficiency and promptness among other things.
 

Bangorian

Member
Messages
198
Points
7
NYC and Chicago get my vote. The whole "North Station - South Station" debacle in Boston earns it my vote for worst transit in a major city. Oh wait, Detroit, home of the Auto Industry is DEFINITELY the worst... Of course its not really a major city anymore.
 

Tranplanner

maudit anglais
Messages
7,917
Points
36
Well, IMHO "best" is a pretty subjective category. Transit systems evolve to serve the area they are located in, and are subject to a variety of forces (often beyond their control) that impact how well they operate.

I'll put in a plug for Toronto of course, but I'm not sure if it could be considered one of the best in the world - North America certainly though.

The TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) currently recovers about 82% of it's operating costs through the farebox - that's the highest in North America. It's won numerous awards for passenger and system safety (marred of course by a subway crash in 1995 which killed 3 people). The TTC has struggled over the past decade though, primarily due to lack of funding. The result is lower maintenance, less cleaning, and older vehicles (we still run a great number of GM "New Looks" - most of which are over 18 years old). Ridership has declined from about 450 million rides/year to about 410 million rides/year over the same period. There is renewed hope though with the election of a new pro-transit mayor, a new provincial government, and a change in leadership at the Federal level.

Toronto's regional transit system (GO Transit ) is also very successful - lack of funding though has limited its growth.

My weakness is streetcars - Toronto maintained its streetcar system when most other North American cities abandoned theirs after WWII. Here's a shot I took this morning during a site visit:

19streetcar-med.jpg
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
The best north american city? Chicago gets my vote, but I might think differently if i lived there. Aside from that i think NJTransit is the winner. Not the whole state of course - North Jersey - the Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City area and surrounding suburbs.

Def. not Philly. Just kidding. I would say, actually, that we probably have the best regional rail system in the country.
In New York City - NJTransit and LIRR share Penn Station but if you wan't to go to northern suburbs it's 20 blocks to get to Grand Central Station for the Metro-North Trains. In Chicago it's a similar situation. Boston, of course, has there North/South Station. In Philly every one of the 13 rail lines passes through 4 of the center city rail stations. The bus system is extensive but certain lines are only every 20 minutes during the day. The subway/trolley system misses huge sections of the city.

New York has a great subway system but in the outer boroughs it's often quite a walk to the nearest station. Subway rides from Brooklyn can often take an hour or more - forget about Queens.
In Manhattan trying to go "crosstown can be very frustrating as can intra-borough trips in Brooklyn and Queens. The bus service is like a blanket but ridiculously slow.

DC's Metro is certainly the nicest i've ever seen but it seems confused. It doesn't know whether it's a commuter rail or a subway. The stations are ridiculously far apart within the city limits. I think it handles the commuter aspect much better.
 

SGB

Cyburbian
Messages
3,388
Points
26
MaineMan said:
The whole "North Station - South Station" debacle in Boston earns it my vote for worst transit in a major city.
I've never actually lived or worked in a city with public transit, but I used to visit Beantown (aka Boston) quite a bit. I always found "The T" (Boston subway system) easy to use. I could get anywhere I wanted to easily on it.
 

Greenescapist

Cyburbian
Messages
1,169
Points
24
SGB said:
I've never actually lived or worked in a city with public transit, but I used to visit Beantown (aka Boston) quite a bit. I always found "The T" (Boston subway system) easy to use. I could get anywhere I wanted to easily on it.
The North station-South station gap is not really a problem for the T as much as it is for commuter rail and amtrak. If you want to take amtrak from DC to Portland, ME for example, you'd have to get out at South Station in Boston and take a cab or walk the 1.5 miles to North Station to get the trains that go north. Pretty poor planning. They would like to build an underground tunnel to connect the two stations, but Boston screwed itself out of any more federal transport money since the Big Dig has been waaaaay over budget.

For best transit, I'd say NYC wins hands-down. I lived in DC and liked the metro system, but it hasn't keep pace withe fast growing exurbs there. SF seemed to have an OK mix of buses, trams and the BART. I think Seattle has to be the worst.... they have nothing and are crippled by an inefficient bus system and awful freeway traffic.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Greenescapist said:
The North station-South station gap is not really a problem for the T as much as it is for commuter rail and amtrak. If you want to take amtrak from DC to Portland, ME for example, you'd have to get out at South Station in Boston and take a cab or walk the 1.5 miles to North Station to get the trains that go north. Pretty poor planning.
You can also take the T. Red line at South Station to Park Street, change to Green Line, off at North Station.

I think the North-South gap "problem" is waaaaaaaaaayyy overblown.

However, don't consider this a vote for Boston - my vote goes to Chicago.
 

Miles Ignatius

Cyburbian
Messages
368
Points
12
Takin' The Train

Based on my personal experience [perhaps not as extensive as some] would be New York @ #1 and I would give the Bay Area some high marks with the extensions of BART, light rail in San Jose and commuter rail on the Peninsula.
 

Richmond Jake

You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
Messages
18,313
Points
44
Re: Takin' The Train

Miles Ignatius said:
I would give the Bay Area some high marks with the extensions of BART, light rail in San Jose and commuter rail on the Peninsula.
...with ferry service from SF to Marin and the East Bay. I used to ride the ferries from Larkspur in Marin to SF and it was great.
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
25,803
Points
61
Denver - RTD

PATH - Port Authority Trans Hudson
between NJ and NY

NJ Transit SkyTrain
between Newark Airport and Newark Penn Station
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
...with ferry service from SF to Marin and the East Bay. I used to ride the ferries from Larkspur in Marin to SF and it was great.
For sheer beauty, the ultimate transit commute. My sister did this regularly for a while.
 

Trail Nazi

Cyburbian
Messages
2,779
Points
24
It has been awhile but I love NYC's public transit. Aside from DC and NYC, I haven't experience many American public transit systems. I have good experiences in London and Zurich.
 

bocian

Cyburbian
Messages
212
Points
9
Best: Moscow (Russia), NYC and Chicago tied as US winners (the only 2 cities with all night service - and that's a must!!).
Worst: Seattle, Los Angeles, Minneapolis (the last one might change after light rail starts operating in the spring of 2004).
 

tsc

Cyburbian
Messages
1,905
Points
23
This is a difficult comparison because varying factors, population, age of system, size of system, etc.

I have really only used Bostons, NY, and London.... all three worked great for me... the last time I used the Boston system it was particularly clean.. .but this was also during the 100th running of the Marathon... they probably cleaned everything up for the event.

I live about 2 miles from a train station...(suburbs) so I use public trans when I can. I can be in midtown in 45 minutes which is better than driving. NYC works great... I just wish the last train home was a bit later than 1:20am..... missing the last train home is a nightmare......sad to say I know from experience.
 

donk

Cyburbian
Messages
6,970
Points
30
I'm with tranplanner, I love riding the streetcar in Toronto. When I'm there and have time I'll ride the queen from one end to the other and get off if I see something interesting.

tsc, waiting with the winos at the port authority bus station at 3:30am not fun? It has been a real eye opener for me the few times I've done it.
 

Hceux

Cyburbian
Messages
1,028
Points
22
I've been happy with any kinds of non-automobile transit systems except bus systems (because I can never figure out their schedule). I've used the Skytrain in Vancouver, BC, the Metro in Montreal, the Rocket (Subway/TTC) in Toronto, the Tube (subway) in London, and the metro in Paris.

Montreal is nice because there's no squeaky noise as the tires are made of rubber! There's a bunch of different lines, covering the built up area not the outliers (which are covered by the regional train lines).

Vancouver is interesting for its Skytrain and skybus (actually a boat!). Both very easy to use. I've only used them a few times.

The Rocket in Toronto is very convenient, but it's too bad that they're having trouble to increase their users capacity. They recently opened up a new line that goes nowhere because it's only partially done - kinda useless, I think. Should have built it all the way to the other end, so that there is better use and function of it.

There are so many stations in the Paris' metro system, that I can't really complain about their proximity and spread throughout the city. Some trains are rougher and older than others, but that's not worth complaining...

And I love the subway system in London! So convenient, so many stations, so easy to use, so extensive! I can go from the Heahtrow International Airport to Central London in about 50 minutes, using only one line. So extensive in Central London and goes into the outliers very well. Excellent connections to other rail stations. I actually miss it, including the cute lil' map of the tube!!!

Anyways that's what I can contribute...
 

spitfly79

Member
Messages
10
Points
1
I would have to say that Boston's public transportation is really inefficient and does a disservice to those riders who will have to pay an increase in fares for a system that is infrequent in travel times, inefficient in getting people to their destinations, and by far offers the worst service. Its beyond me how they can raise fares when all that will do is drive people to their vehicles and decrease ridership thus making the public transportation even more obsolete....Boston sucks when it comes to public transportation!!! New York was convenient and efficient. Seattle's public transportation is definitely non-existent. I've heard great things about Portland and Dallas. But Boston needs to its self together..it is terrible..and I still ride it everyday to work. Yikes!!!!
 

H

Cyburbian
Messages
2,850
Points
24
spitfly79 said:
I would have to say that Boston's public transportation is really inefficient and does a disservice to those riders who will have to pay an increase in fares for a system that is infrequent in travel times, inefficient in getting people to their destinations, and by far offers the worst service....
Interesting. My brother just went to Boston for the first time to visit his girlfriend's parents and came back raving about the rail system. They apparently live close to a stop and they went everywhere on the system, never using a car.

Although, I guess since he lives in Tallahassee he does not have much to compare it to.
 
Messages
1,264
Points
22
I've only been on a few transit systems in my lifetime.

Omaha (my hometown) - fractured bus system at best. Don't g get caught after 10PM without a ride home.

Baltimore (where I live now) - too expensive for little to no service. Only 1 subway line. 1 light rail line. And a very poor bus system that still follows archaic streetcar patterns.

Chicago - pretty comprehensive but can be very cumbersome. I was my experience you can't take the Red Line from the Clark Street/Broadway area on the North Side area to O'Hare directly. I had to get on a bus to go west, then pick up the train to go to O'Hare. Also very filthy. The only clean stations were O'Hare and Wrigley.

Washington - The cleanest system I've ever seen including the buses. However there are no crosstown-like suburb to suburb rail lines. You can't go from Bethesda to Silver Spring without going downtown first.

NYC - It goes everywhere. From an outsider's point of view it's just as confusing sometimes. I have to remember express trains are in the middle.

Atlanta - A poor replication of Washington even uses the same model of subway cars.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
favorite Euro systems for big cities are London and Barcelona I like the rubber wheeled paris metro but the stops were too close together. The trips took forever and some of the "transfers" between lines were ridiculously far. Barcelona has the alternating male/female anouncements - of course now they're all in Catalan - and for some reason "Proxim estacio - Diagonal" is still stuck in my head.

My favorite smaller city systems are Geneva and Montpellier.
Montpellier is building an excellent lightrail system and Geneva already has one. As well all of their buses run like the light rail cars with stops every quarter mile or so. It's also completely POP - but no one ever asks for your ticket.

US small city systems, I don't know too many of them but I give Charlotte a thumbs up. Harrisburg is OK too.
 

Dharmster

Cyburbian
Messages
440
Points
13
Yes, but you can take a bus from Bethesda to Silver Spring. In fact that bus line is the most heavily used suburban bus line in the region. Why is it that people don't realize that their are busses?

the north omaha star said:


Washington - The cleanest system I've ever seen including the buses. However there are no crosstown-like suburb to suburb rail lines. You can't go from Bethesda to Silver Spring without going downtown first.

 

JivecitySTL

Cyburbian
Messages
115
Points
6
I cannot believe that more people didn't choose NYC as having the best transit. It is probably the only city in the country where it is actually impractical to have a car. Public transit in the Big Apple is second to none.

The 2nd place spot goes to either Boston or DC, too close to call, but both have excellent systems as well.

Chicago's transit system is good too, but I have a few friends in Chicago who said they can't really get by practically without a car on a day-to-day basis because the L is too far to walk to and the buses are too slow.
 

simulcra

Member
Messages
127
Points
6
Whoever said Dallas may have good transit clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

By definition, anything in Texas has terrible public transit. Yes, Dallas does have a successful light rail line, but considering how vastly Dallas sprawls out, the red, blue, and green lines hardly serve any decent amount of areas. Although, admittedly, I'm willing to admit that the Red line is blazingly fast and precise on time (most of it follows along I-75; most cars drive about 70-75 mph on the highway, yet the train can still speed past them).

Living in Chicago, I have sort of mixed feelings about the public transit. Part of it is still an overwhelming feeling that I don't know anything about the bus system, which would make travelling around the northern central city (loop, near north, lincoln park, etc.) much easier. I like the fact that the blue and red lines are 24/7 (great!!), I just wish that there were someway to travel across town faster. But I suppose it's a balance out in costs; i can take public transit withf slowness, or i can take a car with speed but waste time and money on parking. Improvements can still happen, though... as in less centralized trips and more peripheral service (Circle Line... I wish it would actually go all the way to the red and green lines at 35th or Cermak, instead of just stopping at the orange line ashland stop). (Maybe more density so that reopening more stops becomes viable so that service is greater...)

I think NYC beats out Chicago (chicago is, again, the second city). Chances are you have excellent access to the metro, while in Chicago, aside from the north, cta service is sparser (and busses are still overwhelming).

I have big hopes for portland, since the I-205/portland mall MAX new line (looks to be the "orange" line) seems to be well underway, talks-wise... and the milwaukee service seems in place. right now, though, the fact that blue, red, and yellow for the most part share the same rail means good service for limited coverage.

Go Chicago Circle Line (though I probably won't be around by then)!

Wait... tokyo may have the best subway system. I just remember looking at a map and getting a headache... that's some extensive coverage...
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
JivecitySTL said:
I cannot believe that more people didn't choose NYC as having the best transit. It is probably the only city in the country where it is actually impractical to have a car. Public transit in the Big Apple is second to none.
I would agree but the system has capacity issues that have been screaming for 10 years now. The trains are ridiculously crowded and the only answer thus far is to build an LIRR spur to Grand Central and a second hudson river crossing. But both are still 6-10 years away . . . and it'll only make the subway situation worse by delivering more riders to the system.

My biggest problem is that the 8 mile ride from Penn Station to Kensington/Flatbush in Brooklyn takes over an hour. The bus rides are even more painful.

There's a good report on it here
http://www.rpa.org/pdf/metrolink.pdf
 

ablarc

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
713
Points
20
JivecitySTL said:
I cannot believe that more people didn't choose NYC as having the best transit. It is probably the only city in the country where it is actually impractical to have a car. Public transit in the Big Apple is second to none.

The 2nd place spot goes to either Boston or DC, too close to call, but both have excellent systems as well.

Chicago's transit system is good too, but I have a few friends in Chicago who said they can't really get by practically without a car on a day-to-day basis because the L is too far to walk to and the buses are too slow.
Easy to agree with this assessment. I would add San Francisco.

At this point, only poor, damaged Philadelphia and smallish New Orleans are missing from this list , which is also the list of real US cities.

From what I can tell, the only places that have really usable transit are the ones where you have no alternative to using transit. That is, where you can't really get about by car.

If you can get about by car, then there are parking lots. Where there are parking lots, there is no city.
 

plankton

Cyburbian
Messages
750
Points
21
Best: NYC (no question)
2nd Best: SF Bart

Honorable mention: Portland (the fareless zones, streetcar, and continually expanding light rail for a city that size is impressive)

Gotta mention: The People Mover in Detroit. It's where I learned to surf. Opa!
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
ablarc said:
At this point, only poor, damaged Philadelphia and smallish New Orleans are missing from this list , which is also the list of real US cities.
I gave Philly its due.

"Def. not Philly. Just kidding. I would say, actually, that we probably have the best regional rail system in the country.
In New York City - NJTransit and LIRR share Penn Station but if you wan't to go to northern suburbs it's 20 blocks to get to Grand Central Station for the Metro-North Trains. In Chicago it's a similar situation. Boston, of course, has there North/South Station. In Philly every one of the 13 rail lines passes through 4 of the center city rail stations. The bus system is extensive but certain lines are only every 20 minutes during the day. The subway/trolley system misses huge sections of the city. "

There's nothing "broken" about our transit system. It works just fine. Like i said, we have the best regional rail network in the country, hands down. The problem people have with SEPTA is more on the customer service level - that and the frequency of service. There is overcrowding on a few rail lines during the peak and on a lot of bus lines for most of the day. Most of the time it's due to headways but on some bus lines that run every 6 minutes it's because riders have to raise hell to get articulated buses . . . again customer service.

SEPTA is still in the 80's mindset of sinking transit ridership. They are still managing decline when there is a lot of pent up demand that is going elsewhere (bike/car/cab) because the management there is terrible.
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
25
I've been following this thread with mild interest for a while now, so I think it's time for me to weigh in. First of all, asking about "best" public transit is pretty useless. You can have very comprehensive systems with poor headways, sparse systems with good headways, comprehensive, frequent systems with small coverage areas, otherwise good systems that are unreliable or have poor customer service, etc etc. Plus there are different types of systems that serve different needs, surface systems, rapid transit, commuter systems, etc. Finally, one of the most important factors in how useful the system is dosen't have anything to do with the system itself but, rather, how the city it serves is built. Los Angeles, for instance, will never have "good" transit no matter how much they spend on it because the city wasn't built for transit.

Responding to a few points made by other posters:

New York - NYC's system certainly is the most successful in terms of market share. That's helped in a big part due to the fact that New York is built in an incredibly transit-friendly manner (as one poster pointed out, it is highly impractical to own a car in Manhattan). Its rapid transit system is an order of magnitude larger than anything else in the country. However, it does have some serious flaws. The subway is very overcrowded due to the bonehead decision to tear down the Manhattan ELs in the 1950s and subsequent failure to replace them. It was built by real estate speculators to get people to and from Lower Manhattan and not much else, and that shows. More damning, there aren't any plans to fix that by building crosstown routes. The only significant expansion project that’s progressing is a subway designed to fix the problem caused in the '50s by the destruction of the ELs. Furthermore, NYC has the dubious distinction of being in the short list of cities with rapid transit that still don't serve its airports. When it finally does get service to JFK (via an airtrain extension, not a station in the terminal) subway riders will be charged a punitive fee to ride the airtrain. Finally, subway service to Queens is very sparse, and the bus system there is very poor quality (run by private companies using old, poorly maintained city-owned busses, not the MTA). That is for a borough as dense overall as the city of Chicago.

I really wasn’t impressed by the San Francisco Muni at all, especially the light rail, which was excruciatingly slow. It was at one time considered the worst big city transit systems in the country, but it recently won an award for “most improved transit agency” so I know they’ve done a lot to turn that around--- but the trams are still really slow.

I hear a lot of doom-and-gloom about Philadelphia, but their system is pretty comprehensive, especially the commuter rail, and I think the complaining actually speaks well of the system to a certain extent because it means people are relying on the system to get them around. You don’t hear nearly as much complaining about IndyGO, for instance, because it’s a social service for the poor and nothing else.
 

Dharmster

Cyburbian
Messages
440
Points
13
I'd like to reply to two of Jordan's point.

1) Why is that people think there should be rail transit (preferabbly cheap) to airports? As long as they give regular commuters (airport based employees) a discount then it's okay to soak the traveller. If you can afford to pay at least $200 for a airline ticket, why do people complain so much about paying an extra $10 roundtrip. First of all, the majority of airline passengers will transfer from Airtrain to LIRR, not the subway! Secondly the combined fare of about $11 on LIRR and Airtrain to/from Manhattan will still be much cheaper AND more reliable than the alternatives (shuttles, private cars, and taxis). The same goes for Airtrain at Newark.. all people do is complain about the $5 surcharge each way. This is not Europe and we have limited resources so soaking the airline passenger IMHO is actually good public policy. That's why so many public transit operators here in the US charge more to/from the airport!

2) If you've bothered to look at the statistics SEPTA's commuter rail system is really BAD. Sure it serves the needs of many riders. But it does have amongs the lowest average speeds and lowest levels of productivity of any major commuter rail system in North America (and the stats don't lie). What SEPTA needs to do is shut down some redundant lines (especially those serving the primarily the City) and many stations. They need to build transportation centers with parking/feeder bus and shut down underutilized stations. Until they do that they will continue to run the least productive and slowest major commuter rail system in North America.

jordanb said:

Responding to a few points made by other posters:

Furthermore, NYC has the dubious distinction of being in the short list of cities with rapid transit that still don't serve its airports. When it finally does get service to JFK (via an airtrain extension, not a station in the terminal) subway riders will be charged a punitive fee to ride the airtrain.


I hear a lot of doom-and-gloom about Philadelphia, but their system is pretty comprehensive, especially the commuter rail, and I think the complaining actually speaks well of the system to a certain extent because it means people are relying on the system to get them around.
 
Last edited:

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,549
Points
25
I couldn't disagree with Dharmster more. I think that all light rail should go to the airport. The idea of light rail is to link places that people frequently travel to, such as colleges, business centers, high density residential, sports stadiums and airports. NYC really should have it. Traveling from Newark on a shuttle bus to midtwon takes forever. A train could do it in a fraction of the time.

Most Cities that have mass transit have airport connections because people use them. Pepole who live there love the connections because they don't get screwed on parking or taxi rides. Tourists love them because they provide a safe, cheap, and tourist friendly means of getting around a city that they are unfamiliar with.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
the airtrain to JFK opened yesterday.

I suppose I don't really notice the surcharge when i take to the train to Newark Airport - but the problem isn't charging $5 extra to transfer to the monorail. The problem is that the people driving to the airport and parking in one of the satellite lots ride the monorail for free. The monorail wasn't built to serve the train station - it was an afterthought. Most of it's ridership comes from the parking lots. I'm not saying train passengers shouldn't pay for use of the monorail but i think they'd do a much better business on both end if they raised parking fees by a dollar or two and lowered the train surcharge by a dollar or two.

Philly -

The regional rail trains are slow but given the freeway situation (or lack thereof) unless you're coming up 95 from south of the city it's never faster to drive - not by a long shot. $5 and 45 minutes to get 30 miles out into the suburbs - bypassing a freeway with 100,000 vehicle counts in both directions - is never a bad deal.

Ridership is up almost 15% since 1995. I agree that it has a lot of room for improvement and you'll often hear me say at public meetings that the state needs to clean house at SEPTA and appoint a whole new board and find new management. SEPTA's problem isn't sort of like the problem NYC had with their subways. Everything was decrepit and falling apart. Combine that with a state legislature that really doesn't like Philadelphia and it's taking a long to time to find the money to fix what's broken. We're dealing with 130 year old rail lines and 70-80 year old catenary here. At the same time we have a declining population in the city and in Delaware County - the two counties with the best transit coverage and a complete lack of visionary leadership in the city, DelCo, and at SEPTA. But that's about declining ridership in the transit division not regional rail and isn't really about the quality of service.

We don't have redundant rail lines here. In the city, transit has a 50% market share and another 20% walk/bike to work. For the region as a whole it's about 11% and if you exclude the population of our region that lives outside of the SEPTA service area it's more like 15%. Most rail riders here, except in the newer suburbs, walk to the station. Eliminating "redundant" lines would, and has, resulted in a total loss of that ridership because most lines that people think of as being redundant like the R7/R8 to Chestnut Hill or the R6 Norristown have a largely suburban and/or affluent ridership that can, will, and do switch to private auto if/when their service is suspended.

Like i said, the problem with SEPTA is that they don't know the meaning of customer service - ask anyone in Philly what they hate about SEPTA and they'll bring out a laundry list but nearly everyone relates to dirty trains, rowdy kids (city kids ride SEPTA to and from school), late buses, and obsolete fare media.

That and the leadership in this region has squandered (and in some cases resisted) much of the opportunity to channel new development around the regional rail system.

Things that, to me at least, are customer service issues. They just don't think it's important enough to hire more janitors and cops and they don't think their riders are worth the investment in new TVM's.
 

Dharmster

Cyburbian
Messages
440
Points
13
Have you ever used Airtrain to Newark? You take NJ Transit (or even Amtrak) to the Newark International Airport Rail Station. There you transfer to a monorail to take you to the terminal. NJ Transit provides about four trains an hour during normal travel times. Most of the complaints, I've seen center around the fact that NJ Transit and Amtrak collect about a $5 surcharge on all trips to/from the Newark rail station. They actually transfer most of that to the Port Authority which uses it to maintain the extension of the monorail and the station rail station.

Repo Man said:
I couldn't disagree with Dharmster more. I think that all light rail should go to the airport. The idea of light rail is to link places that people frequently travel to, such as colleges, business centers, high density residential, sports stadiums and airports. NYC really should have it. Traveling from Newark on a shuttle bus to midtwon takes forever. A train could do it in a fraction of the time.
 
Last edited:

Dharmster

Cyburbian
Messages
440
Points
13
Regards, Newark I would agree with you. However, if I was in the Port Authrorities shoes, I'd do the same thing. Parking (at $20 a day in close in garages) generates big $$ for the PA. The profits from parking acutally helped to pay for the monorail so the idea of parkers riding for free doesn't bother my real world side that much. Also remember, that at $20 a day the PA is probably pushing what the market will bear and raising it even more might actually cause demand to drop dropping revenues.

I'd like to point out that SEPTA charges a premium to the airport, as does Metrolink in St. Louis, the RTD in Denver on buses, and so does BART to SFO (actually in this case all of San Mateo County pays a big surcharge). I don't know why so many people have a problem with a surcharge? The key thing is to offer the regular commuter (usually worker) a discount. Take Newark Airport for example. The one way fare from Penn Station to the EWR rail station is $11.55 peak/$9.05 off peak. However, if you purchase a handy dandy monthly pass you pay only $173 and assuming you make 42 trips a month, that works out to be only $4.11 each way. A monthly pass to the next station North Elizabeth is $123 so the premium is less than $50 a month or less than a $1.25 per trip. Compare that to BART which charges only $4.70 each way from Embarcardero to SFO, but offers nothing more than a 6.25% discount for high value farecards. The poor airport worker would actually end up paying more than than Airtrain to Newark! I care about providing affordable transportation to airport workers not airport passengers.

As for Philadelphia, I'd like to know how much of that ridership increase has come from riders whose destination or origin is outside of the city limits. Also you used 1995 as your baseline for Regional Rail ridership, but how about comparing ridership to say 1980.. is it still up?

The problem with SEPTA's commuter rail lines is that they are a labor and capital intensive way of moving people short distances. If you look at transit plans from when Philadelphia was buidling their subway, you'll see that the Broad Street subway was built to take four tracks because it was supposed ot have branches serving much of the city including areas now served by commuter rail. Subway or light rail is a more efficient way of serving city riders than commuter rail. Plus, because it's more labor efficient you can provide better off peak service. Basically, many of the lines serving the city need to be converted to transit operation (light rail with POP ticketing) or shut down. Finally, those people walking ot their stations have it really nice but that doesn't do much for the regional speed. I stand behind my argument that the system is slow and inefficient. Look at any metric:

- average speed
- passengers per route mile
- passengers per revenue hour
- employees per thousand passenger miles

etc..

You'll find SEPTA near the bottom when compared to other major commuter rail systems in North America. That doesn't bother me so much as that they are content to remain there.
 

biscuit

Cyburbian
Messages
3,904
Points
25
jresta said:
. Combine that with a state legislature that really doesn't like Philadelphia and it's taking a long to time to find the money to fix what's broken.
[ot]I think it's a state legislature that doesn't seem to like cities, period. They can somehow manage to come up with all the money in the world for new rural highways but refuse to fund the proper maintenance and improvement of the urban infrastructure (including light rail and other mass transit) in this state[/ot]
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
25
Well, you forget that roads are incredibly cheap for local and state governments because the federal government picks up 80% to 90% of the cost. Public transit improvements will only get about 50% and it's a lot harder to get that money to boot.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
Originally posted by Dharmster
I'd like to point out that SEPTA charges a premium to the airport
It costs $5.50 to get to the airport from center city. For a similar distance peak period trip on any other train it would cost you $4.25. A premium in name but $1.25 is hardly $5.

As for Philadelphia, I'd like to know how much of that ridership increase has come from riders whose destination or origin is outside of the city limits. Also you used 1995 as your baseline for Regional Rail ridership, but how about comparing ridership to say 1980.. is it still up?

Ridership peaked in the early 60's and declined until the mid 80's. We're still about 4% under the late 60's peak. I don't have an exact percentage but i'd say we're up 22% over 85.

I'd also say, ballpark, that 80% of the growth in ridership is people from the northern and western suburbs (Bucks and Montgomery Counties) commuting to center city. Our recent survey of cordon line crossings (into the CBD) shows regional rail trips crossing the north screen line at an all time high. West screen line crossings are down 16% from their peak but they're still up 10% from their trough.

15% of the riderhsip growth is people from the city commuting to jobs in the suburbs and 5% is people in the outlying city neighborhoods commuting to center city. (i'm looking at SEPTA's 2001 census for this). All of the stations that posted double digit gains in boardings are suburban towns that recently expanded their parking or have employment centers near their stations or they are employment centers in Philadelphia like the Temple U. or University City stations or the rest of the center city hubs. Likewise resurgent city neighborhoods in the northwest like Manayunk, Roxborough, Mt. Airy, etc. are also seeing double digit gains.

[B If you look at transit plans from when Philadelphia was buidling their subway, you'll see that the Broad Street subway was built to take four tracks because it was supposed ot have branches serving much of the city including areas now served by commuter rail.[/B]

The Broad St. Subway does have 4 tracks. Express trains run on these tracks from the northern end at Fern Rock (where you can transfer to 4 of the 7 RR lines) down to Walnut/Locust in Center City. The express tracks don't run down to South Philly b/c there was never much point. It's only another 12 minutes from Walnut/Locust to the lines southern terminus.

A loop of center city was started in the 1930's, the remnants of which can be seen today as the Ridge Ave. subway and the Locust St. subway that is now used by PATCO. It was originally intended that the local trains would use this loop and the Expresses would change to locals at Walnut/Locust and continue on to South Philly.

In the 60's, an idea was floated for a subway extension to the northeast in the median of Roosevelt Blvd (US 1). It's been gaining steam lately but it's in competition with the Schuylkill Valley Metro. That subway extension is expected to open with 100,000 daily boardings. It would fill in the gap between the R8 and the R7 - you might call that redundant but when a line has that many riders and only 30% used to make the trip by transit (primarily by bus)it's not redundant. Saying regional rail lines in Philly are redundant is like saying that the Red Line and Green line are redundant because they both serve the MD suburbs northwest of DC.


subway or light rail is a more efficient way of serving city riders than commuter rail. Plus, because it's more labor efficient you can provide better off peak service. Basically, many of the lines serving the city need to be converted to transit operation (light rail with POP ticketing) or shut down.

subway is a more efficient way of serving urban riders. Just because it's in the city limits doesn't mean the density exists to support a subway.

I would agree with light rail but you're not the first person to think of it. We have 13 regional rail routes. There are only 4 of them where light rail would really make much sense but there's the rub - off all the routes 6 of them share tracks with Amtrak, freight, or both for the entire length of their routes. Another 3 share tracks with Amtrak for part of their route and of course all the trains share the trunk line between Fern Rock and Market East so if one train is commuter rail they all have to be.

Of course we could just abandon the rail tunnel, which is where 75% of the riders are going in the first place - and construct all new light rail approaches to Center City - which would require using surface streets, which would significantly slow the trip.


Finally, those people walking to their stations have it really nice but that doesn't do much for the regional speed. I stand behind my argument that the system is slow and inefficient.

Only 3 of 13 routes serve the city. Another 2 routes have a couple of stops within the city limits and the other 7 have one stop each on the fringes of the city - light rail doesn't work for 40 mile hauls that share ROW with Amtrak especially in a suburban setting. The 3 lines that serve the city are surrounded at each station by the old victorian era villages that grew up around them. Closing some stations means adding parking at others, which means tearing down houses in otherwise healthy neighborhoods. But Philly is second only to NYC in one car households and households with no car. Closing stations doesn't mean that simply adding parking will accomodate those riders. If they lose their station you've just added a bus transfer and 20 minutes onto their trip.


You'll find SEPTA near the bottom when compared to other major commuter rail systems in North America. That doesn't bother me so much as that they are content to remain there.

we know SEPTA is slow and we are studying one regional rail line at a time and suggesting strategic suburban station closings, high level and low level platforms to speed up boarding and travel times. SEPTA is also working on getting the capital to replace catenary, fix switches, and buy new trains.
They are wasteful when it comes to labor and i and others have made numerous suggestions as to what to do about it. None of them have to do with light rail or subways and almost all of them have to do with how long it takes them to turn trains around and fare media.
 

Dharmster

Cyburbian
Messages
440
Points
13
Ah but, here's the rub. For fare purposes all stations on the R1 are considered ZONE 1 (not zone 3 as you implied) for monthly/weekly commutation but ZONE 5 for one way/round trip. Since the Airport Line stations are considered zone 1, You can use a monthly Transpass on trips to/from Philadelphia International Airport which costs $70. Assuming you take 42 monthly trips that works out to $1.66 each way. If you buy a single/round trip ticket it's always $5.50 (no off peak discount), wheras if it was treated as zone 1 normally the fare would be $3.50/$4.50 so the surcharge is $1 during peak periods and $2 during off peak periods. Since peak fares apply only during the 6AM to 9:30AM period, that's more than a 44% surcharge! Compared with what montly commuters pay, it's almost a 70% surcharge!

jresta said:
Originally posted by Dharmster
I'd like to point out that SEPTA charges a premium to the airport
It costs $5.50 to get to the airport from center city. For a similar distance peak period trip on any other train it would cost you $4.25. A premium in name but $1.25 is hardly $5.

 

Dharmster

Cyburbian
Messages
440
Points
13
But commuter rail is more wasteful of labor. A three car light rail train can operate with just one person, plus random fare inspectors (say 1/4 of a person for arguments sake). Whereas a three car commuter train migh carry an engineeer, conductor and assistant conductor or three people. Plus, when you are dealing with commuter rail you are subject to FRA safety/operating regulations which do not apply to light rail/subway operations.

I won't argue with you that most regional rail lines serve places outside the city. My point is that even in the suburbs Septa's train stations are too closely spaced. As for having to replace parking, you don't have to do that. By strategically closing lines you WOULD lose some ridership. However, you keep the most productive lines/stations. Therefore your productivity goes way up. What SEPTA needs is more systems engineers and less political influence.

jresta said:
Originally posted by Dharmster

You'll find SEPTA near the bottom when compared to other major commuter rail systems in North America. That doesn't bother me so much as that they are content to remain there.

we know SEPTA is slow and we are studying one regional rail line at a time and suggesting strategic suburban station closings, high level and low level platforms to speed up boarding and travel times. SEPTA is also working on getting the capital to replace catenary, fix switches, and buy new trains.
They are wasteful when it comes to labor and i and others have made numerous suggestions as to what to do about it. None of them have to do with light rail or subways and almost all of them have to do with how long it takes them to turn trains around and fare media.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
Dharmster said:
Ah but, here's the rub. For fare purposes all stations on the R1 are considered ZONE 1 (not zone 3 as you implied) for monthly/weekly commutation but ZONE 5 for one way/round trip. Since the Airport Line stations are considered zone 1, You can use a monthly Transpass on trips to/from Philadelphia International Airport which costs $70. Assuming you take 42 monthly trips that works out to $1.66 each way. If you buy a single/round trip ticket it's always $5.50 (no off peak discount), wheras if it was treated as zone 1 normally the fare would be $3.50/$4.50 so the surcharge is $1 during peak periods and $2 during off peak periods. Since peak fares apply only during the 6AM to 9:30AM period, that's more than a 44% surcharge! Compared with what montly commuters pay, it's almost a 70% surcharge!
Only the Eastwick Station on the R1 is zone 1 and that's only b/c it's within the city limits- even though it's much further out than all other zone 1 stations on the other lines. All of the airport terminal stops are zone 5. It's printed on the schedule, it's on their website, and anyone who rides it regularly will tell you that it's zone 5. Terminals A-D are not within the city limits even though the city owns that property. They're all in Delaware County except for Terminal E. And based on distance (if the R1 didn't serve a special destination like the airport) all of the terminals would be Zone 3 - and pardon me that's a $4.50 one way trip not $4.25

You can't compare what a monthly pass holder pays per trip to what a one-way ticket buyer pays and hold it up as special b/c it applies to every other line as well.

If you were making the trip everyday you wouldn't buy two one-way tickets everyday. You would buy a monthly pass. If you do live in the city, don't have a monthly pass, and didn't want to pay $5.50 to get to the airport you could just take the subway to Snyder and take the 37 bus to the airport all for the cost of a token and a transfer. $1.90 peak or $1.60 off peak. If you live in the suburbs and you're taking the train the airport surcharge quickly evaporates the further out you live. It's a flat $7 so if you live in Doylestown or Paoli it's not costing you anything extra. So really, if they're sticking it to anyone they're only sticking it to riders who board inside zone 3. But even then $1 or $1.25 is not a lot considering that it costs $5 to park for 15 minutes.
 

Dharmster

Cyburbian
Messages
440
Points
13
Not really true. The majority of transit funds are distributed on a FORMULA basis and require only a 20% local match. The major discretionary program is the New Starts program. It's true almost no projects with anything less than a 40% local match (although that is not an official requirement yet) have been approved in recent years. However, even WITH a de-facto local match requirement of 50% the demand for the available money far exceeds the supply. Thus, I think the 50% match is an acceptable (but not optimal) way of rationing the money. In my opinion it's not optimal because it discrimantes against poor cities in states with no capital support for new transit. For example, it means that poor cities like New Orleans (with a limited tax base) struggles to come up with a 20% match, but Miami can easily come up with matching funds to build new rail lines and busways.

jordanb said:
Well, you forget that roads are incredibly cheap for local and state governments because the federal government picks up 80% to 90% of the cost. Public transit improvements will only get about 50% and it's a lot harder to get that money to boot.
 

Dharmster

Cyburbian
Messages
440
Points
13
Yes, but if the fare policy was consistent (e.g. zone 5 fare one way tickets and MONTHLY/WEEKLY passes) then their would be NO imputed fare surcharge for airport ridersh.

The airport line stations are the ONLY stations in the regional rail system where TRANSPASSES/TRAILPASSES are valid for the full fare at all times. Thus the station is a zone 5 station, but a Zone 1 station for monthly/weekly commuters.

jresta said:


You can't compare what a monthly pass holder pays per trip to what a one-way ticket buyer pays and hold it up as special b/c it applies to every other line as well.

 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
Dharmster said:
But commuter rail is more wasteful of labor. A three car light rail train can operate with just one person, plus random fare inspectors (say 1/4 of a person for arguments sake). Whereas a three car commuter train migh carry an engineeer, conductor and assistant conductor or three people. Plus, when you are dealing with commuter rail you are subject to FRA safety/operating regulations which do not apply to light rail/subway operations.]
Many trains during the off-peak only have the engineer and one conductor. But again, this is a problem with fare collection, not with operations. If people have the opportunity to pay for their fare before they board (like NJTransit) every SEPTA train (except the busiest peak-period trains) could get away with a just a conductor and engineer. If all of the stations had high level platforms like NJTransit trip times would be much shorter. If all of the trains had center doors boarding and alighting would be much quicker. But these are problems with SEPTA's priorities - not with the system.

And again, "strategic elimination" of rail lines, as was proposed earlier in the year (R1, R6 Cynwyd, R2 Warminster and R7 Chestnut Hill) would've dropped 15,000 rides a day. Sure some of them would've moved to buses - but it takes 3 or 4 buses to move the passengers of one rail car, the fare is less, it takes longer, and not everyone gets a seat. Some of them might've found parking at other stations. Most of them would, as we've seen in the past with other SEPTA line closings, abandon transit.

As far as light rail is concerned, converting just those 3 routes (it would make no sense with the R2) to light rail and finding new ROW's for the areas where the lines currently share tracks with freight or regional rail would be in the neighborhood of $3 billion (getting 3 light rail routes into center city is going to be very pricey - even if they share the ROW). Even if it was only half that you could subsidize those 3 lines for the next 30 years with that kind of money.



I won't argue with you that most regional rail lines serve places outside the city. My point is that even in the suburbs Septa's train stations are too closely spaced. As for having to replace parking, you don't have to do that. By strategically closing lines you WOULD lose some ridership. However, you keep the most productive lines/stations. Therefore your productivity goes way up. What SEPTA needs is more systems engineers and less political influence.

Of 152 rail stations only 20 had daily passenger counts of less than 200. 4 of the stations are in the city and the other 16 are in the suburbs. 2 of those city stations and 2 of the suburban stations were closed in September. Of the remaining 16 stations, 4 are losing ridership. Of the 12 that are seeing increased boardings, 8 stations have double digit growth.

You can't scrap a system that works for the people using it and replace it with something brand new, get rid of all your old equipment, and build a whole new infrastructure and not consider the cost/benefit.

SEPTA can get with the program on fare collection, high level platforms, cutting redundant buses (that run on parallel streets 3 blocks apart - or on top of subways), moving bus and trolley stops to strategic intersections rather than every corner, switching to POP on the buses and board from both doors, finish the missing link between the light rail and regional rail network, sell functional transit maps, post the route and times on bus shelters, work with the city to develop "non-conforming" (parking lots, auto body shops, etc) uses around subway and el stops, and construct rail fly-overs just south of 30th St and at Frankford Jct. to separate regional rail from Amtrak.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
Dharmster said:
Yes, but if the fare policy was consistent (e.g. zone 5 fare one way tickets and MONTHLY/WEEKLY passes) then their would be NO imputed fare surcharge for airport ridersh.
I don't really understand what this means. Are you saying that pass holders should have to have a Zone 5 monthly pass to get to the airport? The reason they don't is because of a deal worked out between the airport and SEPTA. It's more of a case of the airport subsidizing their employee's transit fare than SEPTA sticking it to tourists. But beyond that, if you work at the airport and live in Jenkintown you still have to have a zone 2 pass b/c you're boarding in Jenkintown. It's not like just b/c you're going to the airport and you have a trailpass doors magically open for you. Monthly and weekly pass holders get big discounts regardless of where they are going.

The airport line stations are the ONLY stations in the regional rail system where TRANSPASSES/TRAILPASSES are valid for the full fare at all times. Thus the station is a zone 5 station, but a Zone 1 station for monthly/weekly commuters.

yeah, so if you don't have a monthly or weekly pass then you pay $1 or $1.50 over the cost of a regular regional rail ticket to take the train to the airport. Unless of course you're going out to Zone 3 or beyond and then there is no surcharge. Like i said, it's a lot cheaper than Newark and at a max of $7 it's cheaper and no less convenient than parking in a satellite lot.
 

Dharmster

Cyburbian
Messages
440
Points
13
A couple of points. In order to have a POP system on SEPTA they would have to put in a maintain ticket vending machinesTVMs at all the stations. I believe, SEPTA actually removed TVMs from some of their suburban stations because of vandalism.

The other thing is that putting in high level platforms on lines where the ROW is shared with freight is very expensive due to clearance issues. As would installing high level platforms on lines with long trains, unless you do short high level platforms and they don't save a lot of time if ridership is high.

The idea about cancelling redundant bus lines is a red herring. SEPTA's proposal to largely eliminate the line that parrallels the Broad Street line was plain stupid. It carried more riders and was more efficient than 99% of SEPTA's other bus routes. Also the idea of requiring POP at busy bus stops sounds good, but it's difficult to implement. London's done it, and Los Angeles is studying it. Most research shows you need to have very high volumes to justify doing so, and thus it should be done as part of a plan to implement bus rapid transit and not as a standalone measure.

Also, I think the standard of 200 passengers a day is too liberal, I'd use a standard of 400 or 500. Remember the cost of stopping includes the additional power, crew time, and the delay to passengers not getting on/off. For example, here's the average daily ridership by station on Metrorail in FY2002 for the jurisdiction I live in Arlington County, VA:

Blue/Yellow Line

National Airport 3,906
Crystal City 12,769
Pentagon City 14,289
Pentagon 12, 772
Arlington Cemetery 1,555 (I'd like to eliminate this stop during peak periods)

Orange Line

East Falls Church 4,020
Ballston 11,195
Virginia Square 2,653
Clarendon 2,907
Courthouse 6,790
Rossyln 14,900

Total Arlington County 87,756

Now how efficient is SEPTA's commuter rail system?
 
Last edited:

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
Originally posted by Dharmster
A couple of points. In order to have a POP system on SEPTA they would have to put in a maintain TVMs at all the stations. I believe, SEPTA actually remeoved TVMs from some of their suburban stations because of vandalism.

SEPTA might have gotten rid of some TVM's because of vandalism but the reason they're all gone now is because they didn't want to spend the money to make them compatible with the new $20 bill (the one that came out 8 years ago). Regardless - NJTransit has no problem maintaining their TVM's. SEPTA has no excuse.

The other thing is that putting in high level platforms on lines where the ROW is shared with freight is very expensie. As would installing high level platforms on lines with long trains, unless you do short high level platforms and they don't save a lot of time if ridership is high.

I've never seen or heard of a regional rail train with more than 6 cars - and that's only on the R5 line. So for the rest of the system there should be no problem with platforms long enough for 3 cars so that even in 5 car sets the people in the first and last car have to walk to the next car to get off. NJTransit does this on a regular basis with their 8 car trains. As far as platforms that share track with freight - it's only a problem when the freight companies own the line. On the R3 West Trenton line, for example, going with high level platforms would yield a time savings of four trips a day

The idea about cancelling redundant bus lines is a red herring. SEPTA's proposal to largely eliminate the line that parraells the Broad Street line was plain stupid. It carried more riders and was more efficient than 99% of SEPTA's other bus routes. Also the idea of requiring POP at busy bus stops sounds good, but it's difficult to implement. London's done it, and Los Angeles is studying it. Most research shows you need to have very high volumes to justify doing so, and thus it should be done as part of a plan to implement bus rapid transit and not as a standalone measure.

Half of the ridership on the C bus is simple capture from the BSS. I live on South Broad - I watch it all of the time. People walking to the subway look down Broad St. to see if a bus is coming - if it is they wait - because you don't know if you just missed the subway until after you go through the turnstiles.
Besides - it's easier than going up and down 2 flights of stairs.
Broad St. is 14th St. The subway runs underneath it, The C bus runs on top of it, the 23 bus goes down 12th St, the 2 bus goes up 16th St. There's nothing non-redundant or red-herring about wasting $100k a week.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
Also, I think the standard of 200 passengers a day is too liberal, I'd use a standard of 400 or 500. Remember the cost of stopping includes the additional power, crew time, and the delay to passengers not getting on/off.
For example, here's the average daily ridership by station on Metrorail in FY2002 for the jurisdiction I live in Arlington County, VA:

Blue/Yellow Line

National Airport 3,906
Crystal City 12,769
Pentagon City 14,289
Pentagon 12, 772
Arlington Cemetery 1,555 (I'd like to eliminate this stop during peak periods)

Orange Line

East Falls Church 4,020
Ballston 11,195
Virginia Square 2,653
Clarendon 2,907
Courthouse 6,790
Rossyln 14,900

Total Arlington County 87,756

Now how efficient is SEPTA's commuter rail system?


First of all you're comparing commuter rail with heavy rail. Second you're comparing a 130 year old system with a 30 year old system that was built with federal gov't largesse.
Third you're giving me urban metro stations (with the exception of Fall's Church - which is still pretty dense compared to most Philly suburbs) and you're asking me to compare them to suburban regional rail stations.

Let's see the numbers for MARC and VRE and then we'll have a fair comparison . . . but that's OK we can compare them anyway.
These numbers are station boardings. MFL is the Market-Frankford BSS is the Broad St. Subway and RR is regional rail.

MFL 15th St. 29,066
BSS City Hall 26,397
RR Suburban Sta. 23,544
BSS Olney 17,338
MFL Frankford TC 14,995
MFL 69th St. 12,923
RR Market East 10,950
MFL 8th St. 9,267
MFL 30th St. 9,135
RR 30th St. Station 8,558
MFL 11th St. 7,853
MFL 52nd St. 7,593
BSS Erie 7,409
BSS Cecil B. Moore 6,629
BSS Spring Garden 5,871
MFL 60th St. 5,151
MFL 40th St. 5,017
BSS Walnut/Locust 4,926
MFL 34th St. 4,926
MFL 56th St. 4,855
MFL 46th St. 4,664
MFL 13th St. 4,495
BSS Fern Rock 4,458
MFL Allegheny 4,140
MFL 5th St. 3,968
BSS Snyder 3,944
BSS North Philly 3,872
BSS Girard 3,838
BSS Allegheny 3,750
MFL Mrgaret/Orthodox 3,720
BSS Tasker/Morris 3,667
BSS Oregon 3,087
MFL Erie/Torresdale 3,068
MFL Girard 3,050
BSS Susq./Dauphin 2,954
BSS Hunting Park 2,755
BSS Ellsworth/Federal 2,637
BSS Logan 2,511
BSS Wyoming 2,504
BSS Lombard/South 2,486
MFL 2nd St. 2,460
MFL Spring Garden 2,418
BSS Race/Vine 2,228
RR Temple U. 1,865
MFL Somerset 1,816
MFL 63rd St. 1,765
RR University City 1,579
RR Jenkintown 1,558
RR Paoli 1,501
BSS Fairmount 1,489
RR Trenton 1,361
MFL Huntingdon 1,239
MFL Tioga 1,223
RR Cornwell's Hghts 1,220
MFL York/Dauphin 1,177
RR Fox Chase 1,132
RR Bryn Mawr 1,042
 
Top