Just a snippet from the NY Times...

queenlnr8 wrote:I believe that another reason that EL and Subway service doesen't run 24/7 is that SEPTA wants to save on the money by not keeping the juice on all night for a few trains.

Do they really cut the juice for the 5 or so hours that the EL and Subway are offline? I know they leave the lights on at all stations. It would seem horribly inefficient to cut the power overnight to the third rail... Plus you have to account for latenight/earlymorning equipment moves including trash and money train movement (which I assume run overnight).

From what I have heard, those lines are dead at night and when nothing is moving.

Plus, they use the down time to clean all the stations of urine and other human excrement that collects down there since SEPTA can't efficiently clean when someone is actually 'watching.'

Irish Chieftain wrote: Of all modes, it is mass transportation. Problem is, SEPTA does not have the concept of "mass" transportation when it comes to regional or any other rail, whereas agencies like NJ Transit and LIRR operate 12-car EMUs that transport 1,000 passengers at a clip, and the MTA NYC subway system operates the vast majority of trains no shorter than 10 cars.

I'm not sure that this is a fair compairison. Philadelphia isn't NYC. I believe that a big part of the reason that the NYC rails move so many people at a clip is the density of population there. living in NYC is very different than living in philly; people _rely_ on the subway (or train) there in a way that they don't here. If SEPTA only builds to move people into the city in the morning and out in the afternoon, it will never amount to much because that will be all it is able to do.

My point is that an effective transportation system goes hand in hand with a higher population density.

jsc then wrote:Yes, if all those people commute to center city, then a rail line will serve the commuters well. However all those people will still own cars (possibly multiple cars) because you can't walk to any sort of retail area there

Irish Chieftain wrote:That is called missing the point.

please tell me what the point is, then. I thought the goal was to move people quickly and effectively from place to place. I see effective transportation systems in places where mass transit does replace private autos. Those places have a high population density

Irish Chieftain wrote:Rail lines are not intended to replace private transportation but provide relief and an efficient alternative for the areas served, specifically relating to commuting, day-tripping and weekend leisure travel.

I disagree. I don't believe that mass transit will make it if it can't replace the automobile option.

jsc wrote:Busses are not fundamentally evil. There are times that it is preferable to operate bus service in lieu of rail

Irish Chieftain wrote:That is what SEPTA wishes you to believe. Buses, while not utterly evil, are no replacement for rail service.

I would rather see rail service, for example, on the MFL at night. But not if the number of people on a given train can be carried on a 60' bus.

Look, if SEPTA can increase the number of passengers it serves, it can make its deficit go away. If Philadelphia and SEPTA can convince more people to use the EL late at night then by all means run it! But if we're saving money by runing a bus late at night, and people get to where they're going quickly, I'm not convinved this is a bad thing.

You're absolutely right when you point out that trains are the ultimate mass transportation. The goal, I suppose, is to develop enough ridership where a mass of people constantly want to be transported from one place to another.

jsc wrote:

Irish Chieftain wrote: Of all modes, it is mass transportation. Problem is, SEPTA does not have the concept of "mass" transportation when it comes to regional or any other rail, whereas agencies like NJ Transit and LIRR operate 12-car EMUs that transport 1,000 passengers at a clip, and the MTA NYC subway system operates the vast majority of trains no shorter than 10 cars.

I'm not sure that this is a fair compairison. Philadelphia isn't NYC. I believe that a big part of the reason that the NYC rails move so many people at a clip is the density of population there. living in NYC is very different than living in philly; people rely on the subway (or train) there in a way that they don't here. If SEPTA only builds to move people into the city in the morning and out in the afternoon, it will never amount to much because that will be all it is able to do.

Which is why I did not propose "commuter"-style operation. And you are thinking in terms of NYC city living; I did not specifically state that. LIRR and NJ Transit bring people into NYC in the morning and out in the evening; does that diminish their purpose?

My point is that an effective transportation system goes hand in hand with a higher population density.

And Philadelphia and its suburbs has a low population density? All statistical and anecdotal evidence shows otherwise. SEPTA is underserving this dense population on the rail end of things.

jsc then wrote:Yes, if all those people commute to center city, then a rail line will serve the commuters well. However all those people will still own cars (possibly multiple cars) because you can't walk to any sort of retail area there

Irish Chieftain wrote:That is called missing the point.

please tell me what the point is, then. I thought the goal was to move people quickly and effectively from place to place. I see effective transportation systems in places where mass transit does replace private autos. Those places have a high population density

Wrong again. And I already told you that the point was not to replace the private automobile but to provide a way of preventing a crush-load of said automobiles from entering the city center. And again, since when does Philly and its suburbs have a low population density?

Irish Chieftain wrote:Rail lines are not intended to replace private transportation but provide relief and an efficient alternative for the areas served, specifically relating to commuting, day-tripping and weekend leisure travel.

I disagree. I don't believe that mass transit will make it if it can't replace the automobile option.

Define "make it". Mass transit, particularly rail transit, is a public service, not a for-profit private venture, just like the highway system is a public service. Provide enough of it, and you will have high enough ridership to justify it. The benefits of good rail transportation still show in the social benefits, particularly gaining back hours of production lost to traffic jams (and don't tell me that the road arteries going into and out of Center City don't get jammed-up, because they do) plus, in the case of electric rail particularly, the vast reduction of hydrocarbon emissions per capita of rail passenger.

BTW, the only way that mass transit can "replace" the automobile is if it provides door-to-door service at every household. That is not what it is designed to do.

jsc wrote:Busses are not fundamentally evil. There are times that it is preferable to operate bus service in lieu of rail

Irish Chieftain wrote:That is what SEPTA wishes you to believe. Buses, while not utterly evil, are no replacement for rail service.

I would rather see rail service, for example, on the MFL at night. But not if the number of people on a given train can be carried on a 60' bus.

Please understand the ramifications of this. Bustitution acquiesed to leads to more bustitution and less rail service retained—the more bustitution that passengers tolerate, the more SEPTA will replace rail service with buses. Not to mention that it is not inherently cheaper to run the bus as opposed to the train or other electric vehicle.

Look, if SEPTA can increase the number of passengers it serves, it can make its deficit go away.

False premise. No transit agency has ever succeeded in "making its deficit go away" nor is deficit reduction the goal of transit agencies—serving passengers is the goal. To increase passenger service on rail requires investment, not cutbacks. By switching from rail to road, SEPTA is contributing to pollution and congestion instead of relieving it. Cutting back on service is not providing service.

If Philadelphia and SEPTA can convince more people to use the EL late at night then by all means run it! But if we're saving money by runing a bus late at night, and people get to where they're going quickly, I'm not convinced this is a bad thing.

The bare fact that there are riders of the bus is proof that there are potential riders of the El. SEPTA did not bustitute due to lack of ridership, otherwise there would be no service at all, not even a bus.

You're absolutely right when you point out that trains are the ultimate mass transportation. The goal, I suppose, is to develop enough ridership where a mass of people constantly want to be transported from one place to another.

Again, developing ridership requires investment and maintenance, not divestment and discontinuation of service.

reldnahkram wrote:
This is primarily a safety issue. Any crimes that happen in the stations go on SEPTA's record. Any crimes that happens while someone is waiting for a bus go on Philly's record. Yes, the trains should run all night, but it's reasonably excusable.

Believe it or not, but I always felt safer in the subway ( BSS or MFSE) late at night than I did on the street. With adequate Police patrolling, it is much easier to patrol a subway station than it is the street at a bus stop.
I remember saying the same thing to people here in the DC area when Metrorail was first proposed. Many of them stated that they would never ride a subway-- especially at night. You can see how this idea has changed now that the full 101 mile Metrorail system is in service. Of course it, too, shuts down after midnight ( 2:00am on weekends).

jsc wrote:Look, if SEPTA can increase the number of passengers it serves, it can make its deficit go away.

As the old adage goes, "You cannot make money mass transporting people. No way, no how." The PRR stated this way way WAY back in 1955.

The only way the SEPTA will operate without a deficit is to have the municipalities it serves and the state (Commonwealth?) of PA pump more money into the system.

I think before SEPTA can begin considering expansion, thy first have to get what they have operation now up to better standards. But I think that what could hamper expansion is that quite a few of their lines are AmTrak lines, you have to deal with AmTrak before expanding. But I also believe that the time has come that SEPTA needs to invest in ne equipment, or at least rehabiliate some of their older trains. Don't get me wrong, I greatly enjoy riding in the old PRR and Reading EMUs, but they need work done to them (Actually, riding in them reminds me of the old days of impressive railroading).

But I think even more impressive is the deal SEPTA worked out with NS to begin operations of a Reading commuter line under the NS flag. The article was in the Inquirer last week, I emailed the author and got some more info about it. SEPTA would contract out to NS, who would provide passenger equipment, And they would operate the Line from 30th to Ivy Ridge and then Norristown, then Reading, as big stops and stations go. There would be other stations the artcle didnt cover. I think that coiuld be the start of a new era of railroading in SE PA.

Elwood

People keep posting as if they have all the answers to Septa's problems. How would you run your company if it was $70 mil in the hole? I heard the estimate for Septa to extend service one stop further on the R3 to Wawa is $51 mil. Everyone is so critical about Septa being so bass ackwards but seems to forget they don't have any money. We don't know the financail problems or pressures they face. They first must figure out a way to lose less money each year before they start expanding to Quakertown or Newtown. Sure railfans might want service extending but will people really ride? Only a study can give us that information. It's easy for people to just sit hear and say Septa should do this and do that with no regard to spending money. Running subways at night is a waste of money with the amount of ridership they have. As someone said earlier, all the stations have to be manned with cashiers. So that means you're paying the BBS/El operator as well as one or two cashiers PER station. From a financial standpoint, that makes no sense when compared to just paying a bus operator for his/her regular run. Night owl ridership is not that high. It picks up earlier in the morning but between midnight - 4am, there aren't that many people out there. For the most part, they don't even run artics on the BSS. So that means a bus that seats 35-40 riders every 15 minutes handles the load. An El/BSS car seats far more riders and will be at least a two car consist. Sounds like Septa knows what they're doing for the most part. I know how bad traffic is in the area and something think the Metrorail thingy would be great. Once again, nobody wants to give them the money to do so. If Septa had the $$, a lot of these expansion projects would be great. In the mean time, they have other internal problems to be addressed.

Here is a "What If".....What if Governor Rendell wanted to bring gambling into Pennsylvania?

What if the people who own Pennsylvania racetracks (some of whom are of Arab citizenship) are playing with high stakes to bring gambling into Pennsylvania?

What if money was squeezed from all sorts of public works....like libraries, mass trransit, public swimming pools, public recreation centers, etc; which would make the public really itch for funds?

What if the Governor and his crew thought...."Maybe if we squeeze the funds out of all of those public works, the people might overwhelmingly vote to bring gambling into Pennsylvania"?

What if the Governor didn't care about the consequences of bringing gambling into Pennsylvania....such as people losing all of their money, addictions to gambling, etc.?

So long as we're on the "what if" kick, there is still also the oft-considered possibility of turning I-80 into a toll road...

checker wrote:People keep posting as if they have all the answers to Septa's problems. How would you run your company if it was $70 mil in the hole?

Define "in the hole". SEPTA is not a for-profit company; it is a public service. All of the non-toll highways are in deeper financial holes, yet the federal and state governments slavishly dump billions after billions of dollars into them. The only "pressure" put on SEPTA is by the governments who set them up, to spin straw into gold without even giving them enough straw. Like the highways, agencies like SEPTA should avail of stable funding sources to fund rail expansion and maintenance. It's all the choice of the PA government in this regard.

All of this simply illustrates how things changed during the 20th century. Most big city transportation systems, including Philadelphia's, were originally developed ( as streetcar lines) by for profit private entities. The history of the Philadelphia operation, from the Union Traction Company through the Philadelphia Rapid Traction Company to the Philadelphia Transportation Company is replete with bankruptcies, complaints about management, (most justified), etc. etc. etc. PRT took over for a bankrupt Union Traction Company, and the PTC took over for a bankrupt PRT. And most of this occurred in the era prior to the time when the automobile became the cultural monster it is today. ( The only exception to this financially dismal history was the Red Arrow Lines and its corporate predecessor the Philadelphia & West Chester Traction Companmy)

The advent of SEPTA was simply a long overdue recognition that it is not possible to provide mass transportation services at a profit as long as you charge fares that most of the people who depend on the service can afford to pay.

Irish is correct, mass public transportation is, and has been for over 50 years, a public service. The efficiency of SEPTA, WMATA, MTA ( both in Maryland & NYC), MBTA etc etc etc must be evaluated based on cost effectiveness, not profitability.

When David Gunn took over at Amtrak, he pointedly told the profit fanatics in Congress that no passenger railroad in the world makes money. OK, maybe there are some niche lines that make money but he was still right on target. I don't have any figures from other countries but I'm sure that a similar statement could be made about transit lines.

What we have to get over is that the U.S. is not the Earth outpost of the Ferengi Empire (all you Star Trek geeks know about the Ferengi and their profit-driven culture, grin). Some services have to be provided and funded publicly for the simple reason that they help all of society, including those who don't directly use them. Whether it's police, fire, education or (to a lesser extent) postal service, there is a general agreement that everyone benefits from their existence so everyone should kick in to support them. Raise transit fares to the point where the system pays for itself out of the farebox and you either lock out the people who need it most, or possibly you don't have a viable system at all.

The alternative could end up like the situation my father-in-law faced as a child in pre-war Europe. Where he lived, education was considered fully the responsibility of each family. Whether an educated workforce benefited the community as a whole didn't enter into it. Guess what? He was smart, real smart, but his parents didn't have the money to send him beyond the equivalent of about 7th grade. Instead he was apprenticed off as a tradesman. When he came to the U.S., this manual laborer ended up going to high school, college and eventually getting a graduate degree as a researcher. So for all of the waste and complaints about our public education system, I still think we did a better job of helping him than did all of the profit-making schools in Saxony.

The conundrum for an organization (or a disorganization) like SEPTA is that while it can't exist without subsidies, simply throwing money at it won't solve its problems either. Somewhere along the line you need to establish a mindset like that I heard described at an R&D shop in the University City area - "we're non-profit but we think like a profit-making company". Especially in SEPTA's case, that may be an impossible goal.

The conundrum for an organization (or a disorganization) like SEPTA is that while it can't exist without subsidies, simply throwing money at it won't solve its problems either

That implies abuses at the highest levels. To prove that, you have to compare current subsidy level to what has been achieved at other transit agencies for that amount of money; then you hold that management accountable.

And Philadelphia and its suburbs has a low population density? All statistical and anecdotal evidence shows otherwise. SEPTA is underserving this dense population on the rail end of things.

Irish, this isn't perfectly accurate. Patterns of living have changed drastically in the past 20-30 years in the Philadelphia area. Rail transit has been left out in all of our sprawl.

Some say that every metropolitan area is dealing with these same problems, however Philadelphia has an especially difficult problem facing it. In the past 20 or so years, we have seen a 33% increase in developed land yet only a pathetic 3% growth in population. No other major city has such a story.

People are moving further and further out, and there is nobody coming into our cities and older towns. This inefficient style of living is the reason why we have trouble with mass transit.

Marte wrote:Here is a "What If".....What if Governor Rendell wanted to bring gambling into Pennsylvania?

What if the people who own Pennsylvania racetracks (some of whom are of Arab citizenship) are playing with high stakes to bring gambling into Pennsylvania?

What if money was squeezed from all sorts of public works....like libraries, mass trransit, public swimming pools, public recreation centers, etc; which would make the public really itch for funds?

What if the Governor and his crew thought...."Maybe if we squeeze the funds out of all of those public works, the people might overwhelmingly vote to bring gambling into Pennsylvania"?

What if the Governor didn't care about the consequences of bringing gambling into Pennsylvania....such as people losing all of their money, addictions to gambling, etc.?

What does this have to do with anything?