City of Philadelphia gives SEPTA 2 Year Lease on Subways

Interesting article:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news ... 100192.htm

While I don't expect the city to be looking for a new operator (don't we wish), it sounds like the city will at least be leveraging some pressure on SEPTA to clean up their act, or at least City Hall Station.

For you history buffs, why did the city sign away rights to operate in the Locust Street subway? With the redevelopment of North Philly around the corner, a subway to Rittenhouse Square would have been nice. The transfer at 8th-Market is quite useless as it is, unless PATCO/SEPTA plan on some kind of joint fare "instrument" (HA).

Whomever the next mayor is, I hope he pulls a Rendell, and puts the pressure on SEPTA to get their @$$ in gear. Seems like Rendell liks beating SEPTA up, even from Harrisburg.

i've been urging city council to support councilman goode's proposal that the city re-negotiate the terms of the subway lease and perhaps consider creating a city department to operate transportation within the city. Ideally the head of such a department woudl be an elected offiial (like the DA) and not a political "hack" installed as a patronage plum so that we, the citizens of the city, would have some direct control over the transporation system.

jsc wrote:i've been urging city council to support councilman goode's proposal that the city re-negotiate the terms of the subway lease and perhaps consider creating a city department to operate transportation within the city. Ideally the head of such a department woudl be an elected offical (like the DA) and not a political "hack" installed as a patronage plum so that we, the citizens of the city, would have some direct control over the transporation system.

Even with an appointed person, the ultimate resposibility for the performance of a City-operated system would lie with the Mayor. If the system performed badly, it would reflect on the Mayor, and he [or she?!] would feel the heat. If it performed good, then that would be reflected on the Mayor, and come re-election time, they would be rewarded with votes [or punished if it turned out badly].

This type of set-up worked with Chicago [CTA] and NYC [NYCT]. A City-owned system would still be associated with SEPTA like Chicago [RTA] and NYC [MTA], but the day-to-day operations within City Limits would ultimately be in the control of City Government.

jfrey40535 wrote:

For you history buffs, why did the city sign away rights to operate in the Locust Street subway?

I'm not certain they did sign away the operating rights completely. Keep in mind that when PATCO was proposed and built, access into the city was necessary and the Bridge Line/Locust Street subway was the obvious choice to accomodate this requirement. After PTC operation began in 1953, the Locust street Subway had extremely low patonage, and there was no thought of (or funding for) extending to SW Philadelphia at the time. PTC and the City were only too happy to give it away.

The city still does retain ownership, and currently receives a rental fee ?($ 8 million)? per year. Originally, the rental had been one dollar a year, but State Senator Vince Fumo (D), who was the 800 pound gorilla of Philadelphia power broker politics at that time, was appointed to the Delaware River Port Authority board in the mid-1990's. He veiwed the DRPA, flush with money and new powers for economic development, as a pot of gold. He and the rest of the Pennsylvania delegation on the DRPA Board literally threatened to terminate PATCO operations if the subway lease agreement was not modified to pay a large amount of money to the City of Philadelphia. I'll paraphrase here because I don't remember his exact comments, but in the content of a televised statement he made on the issue, he said something like: if the people in New Jersey don't like paying more for the lease agreement, they can all get jobs in New Jersey, and that will leave the Pennsylvania jobs open for unemployed residents of Pennsylvania. Way to go Vinnie, huh?

jsc wrote:

and perhaps consider creating a city department to operate transportation within the city.

Right church, wrong pew. Yes, the structure of public transportation management in Philadelphia (and all of southeastern Pennsylvania) needs to be modified. The current structure obviously doesn't work. Given the quality of the services that the City of Philadelphia currently provides, I would be extremely leery of placing the responsibility for transit directly in their hands.

One major problem for transit is the anti-Philadelphia attitude held in rural Pennsylvania. Nothing for Philadelphia is good, including mass transit funding. I don't know how you deal with that short of convincing everyone west of the Susquehanna that they should seceed and form their own State of Allegheny. In all seriousness, what is does mean is that this situation makes a NJ Transit (statewide all-modes agency)-style solution unlikely. It is also probably undesireable from a SE Pennsylvania perspective, given the almost constant battle for resources that would take place.

A more realistic approach is changing they way SEPTA is structured to resemble something more like the RTA in northeastern Illinois. One subsidiary for city transit operations, and one subsidiary for suburban transit operations. It's not clear to me that commuter rail would be best served by being a third subsidiary, as opposed to being another organization responsible solely for commuter rail operations due to the current five-county border mindset that exists (remember how hard it was to reestablish service to Wilmington, and service to Reading still doesn't exist). Perhaps a geographically larger Southeastern Pensylvania Commuter Rail Authority (SEPCRA) including Berks, Dauphin and Lancaster, Lehigh and Northampton counties, or maybe an operating division within PennDOT (PennRail sounds snappy, doesn't it? ).

Fare integration across multiple operators is very doable, as London proves every day.

Bill R. wrote:Fare integration across multiple operators is very doable, as London proves every day.

And it happens in this country too: San Francisco is the best example (something like twenty operators participate in the fare integration program managed by their MPO--http://www.mtc.ca.gov/), but there are lots of other examples.

Bill R. wrote:A more realistic approach is changing they way SEPTA is structured to resemble something more like the RTA in northeastern Illinois. One subsidiary for city transit operations, and one subsidiary for suburban transit operations. It's not clear to me that commuter rail would be best served by being a third subsidiary, as opposed to being another organization responsible solely for commuter rail operations due to the current five-county border mindset that exists (remember how hard it was to reestablish service to Wilmington, and service to Reading still doesn't exist). Perhaps a geographically larger Southeastern Pensylvania Commuter Rail Authority (SEPCRA) including Berks, Dauphin and Lancaster, Lehigh and Northampton counties, or maybe an operating division within PennDOT (PennRail sounds snappy, doesn't it?)

I don't think that the structure of SEPTA (or its successor) as a five-county agency is an insurmountable obstacle to service outside the five counties. Purchase of service contracts are pretty common in the industry, like we have with the Delaware service and Metro-North has with NJT for service west of the Hudson.

In fact, it might even make things easier, since you wouldn't have issues of overall governance. The outside counties decide how much service they want, and they pay for it. You're gonna have disagreements over funding and service levels even if the outside counties are in a new authority.

And whatever name a possible PennDOT rail division or other such entity has, it ought to have initials P.R.R.

What was the Woodland Avenue Subway?

capuzfu wrote:What was the Woodland Avenue Subway?

The subway-surface tunnel to 40th Street. Woodland Ave. used to continue to Market Street. You can see from the campus layouts of Penn and Drexel where it used to be.

[quote="Matthew MitchellAnd whatever name a possible PennDOT rail division or other such entity has, it ought to have initials P.R.R.[/quote]

Of coirse everything would have to be painted Tuscan Red

Matthew Mitchell wrote:

capuzfu wrote:What was the Woodland Avenue Subway?

The subway-surface tunnel to 40th Street. Woodland Ave. used to continue to Market Street. You can see from the campus layouts of Penn and Drexel where it used to be.

Are you sure about that. Prior to the mid 1950s the trolley that went into the Subway (SSL) did so at the portal at 24th street in Center City. I have never heard the term "Woodland Ave Subway" in common parlance, but the subway we have for the SSLs west of the river is the same tunnel that was built. So if someone says Woodland Ave Subway they mean the tunnel that is under Woodland just after going underground.... There was no tunnel that was and was put out of service.

woodland ave continues in memory from 40th across 38th, past the quad dorms at penn, crosses Locust street (walk), encounters Walnut at 34th, cuts across to 33rd and Chestnut, and cuts across Drexel's campus to 32nd and Market where it ends. The tunnel that the subway surface cars use is, in fact called the woodland ave subway.

but most philadelphians would probably know it best as "the trolley tunnel".

maybe I misunderstood.... Today Woodland Ave ends at 38th Street. At one time it did continue all the way to Market in the vicinity of 32nd. The current SSL tunnel, I guess travels underneath what was Woodland Ave, but this area has since become pedestrian only parts off Penns Campus. From the post that I responded to, I got the impression that there was a tunnel under Woodland that is no longer used. I think we are on the same page.

you've got it. Woodland now ends at 38th, but used to continue to 32nd & Market.

In fact, there is a map on Page 33 in The Road to Upper Darby by Harold Cox which clearly shows the right-of-way that Woodland Avenue used to occupy before Penn eliminated it.