MFSE vs. I-95

This morning FOX29 did their commuter challange comparing travel times from Bridge Street to 4th and Market using the EL vs. driving the same trip. The score....Driving 1, Septa 0. While I don't have all the details, the reporter on the train said they had to stop several times between stations (express stacked behind a local?) and the reporter in the car made it to their final destination a full five minures quicker.

Not a great advertisement for Septa service.

Sounds like they stacked the deck a bit, starting and ending the route so close to I-95 exits. Plus, did they factor in parking, or was the driver just able to pull up in front of the building. They oughta do an experimental one, rent a train to run from Reading and Phoenixville to 30th, making 2 minute stops along the way, compared to cars from the various towns up there sitting in traffic on 422

It really depends on when you are making the trip too. Overall, SEPTA is probablly always going to be slower, door-to-door. But during rush hour, SEPTA should have a clear advantage over I-95. I'd hate to be stuck in that mess every day.

Transit the way SEPTA offers it isn't necessarily meant to be faster than driving, it's meant to be an alternative to driving. It's just that here it often ends up being faster than driving, at least at rush hour.

Also, comparing the El to I-95 is like comparing Vine St to the Vine St Expressway, or Ridge Pike to Rt 422, or the R7 Trenton to the Acela Express. I-95 and Acela are meant to be high speed and (comparatively) limited access, whereas even the A or B El trains are essentially glorified locals, not expresses.

I hope that made sense.

That's what I thought as well. I would have easily given the EL at least a 15 minute advantage. They even made a point to say that Septa should have done better to demonstrate it's value. Same trip tomorrow would probably have very different results.

I doubt it was anything that SEPTA could control. The MFSE is usually very reliable and routine during peak hours. I'd be willing to bet their test wasn't all that accurate. If done during rush hour, SEPTA should have won. But most people's circumstances wouldn't fall into that test.

Too bad the report didn't point out advantages of the El despite it being a few minutes longer. But Bush's budies own Fox, so it wouldn't surprise me if this was slanted journalism.

Boy, This takes me back. In the early 70's, when I was a very active cyclist, I took part in a race during "Bicycle to Work Week." The contestants were a driver, a commuter taking SEPTA, and me riding my trusty Gitane, as I did every day.

The race took place between Robbins and Frankford Avenues in the lower Northeast, and Drexel University, where I was a student. This meant that the driver had to find a place to park, while the SEPTA commuter needed to take the 66 Trackless Trolley, the MFSE, and walk (or run) from 30th and Market to 32nd and Chestnut.

The car driver won.

I came in 50 seconds later (huffing and puffing only slightly).

The SEPTA commuter came about five minutes after me.

As was mentioned, this kind of race needs to be run multiple time to get an accurate picture of which mode of transportation is the fastest. Of course, being the fastest may not be the most important point about taking public transportation. There are other factors to consider, such as:

The availability of parking and parking fees.

The type of commute - depending on the temperament of the commuter, he or she may find taking one mode of transportation more relaxing than the other.

The convenience of SEPTA versus driving.

The reliability of one mode of transportation over another. One may put up with service delays easier than traffic delays.

The satisfaction one gets from keeping one more car or SUV off the crowded roadways and streets.

The savings on insurance, fuel, tires, parking, etc..


Despite all the problems with SEPTA, I still find it the best way to get to most places.

This morning FOX29 did their commuter challange comparing travel times from Bridge Street to 4th and Market using the EL vs. driving the same trip

What time of the morning?

What time of the morning?

I turned it on around 7:45, I think they were done by 8:10.

A couple things to add in favor of the car are that traffic on 95 was probably a little lighter than normal due to an accident north of the Aramingo onramp (although the chopper shots did show him stuck in stopped traffic as usual) and he did pull up directly in front of the TV station so parking was not an issue. On a normal morning, I would have given the train a 10-15 minute advantage easily.

There is also about 70 years between the time the MFSE ( or at least the MSE) opened and the time I-95 opened. I 95 SHOULD be faster being that much more recent.

walt wrote:There is also about 70 years between the time the MFSE ( or at least the MSE) opened and the time I-95 opened. I 95 SHOULD be faster being that much more recent.

I somewhat puzzled. Why should I 95 be faster because it is 70 years more recent than the MFSE? These are totally different modes of transportation. That is like saying that helicopters SHOULD be faster than airplanes because they are newer. They both fly in the air, but they have different functions. Helicopters are very useful, but they tend to be slower than most airplanes.

Speeds on railroads and expressways have much more to do with concepts like their design, efficiency, and capacity, rather than their respective ages.

Stevek wrote:

walt wrote:There is also about 70 years between the time the MFSE ( or at least the MSE) opened and the time I-95 opened. I 95 SHOULD be faster being that much more recent.

I somewhat puzzled. Why should I 95 be faster because it is 70 years more recent than the MFSE?

Speeds on railroads and expressways have much more to do with concepts like their design, efficiency, and capacity, rather than their respective ages.

That is basically my point----there is 70 years between the designing ( and building) of the MFSE and I-95. The MSE ( and later the MFSE) was designed merely to provide faster transportation than the surface streetcars then being operated by the PRT. This it did very well, permitting a significant reduction in travel time between 69th Street and Center City than was possible on the old Route 31 ( and later Route 41) Streetcars which ran on Market Street. The elevated structure really wasn't designed to support speeds much greater than that of the old pre- 1960 equipment ( which ran slower than even the PCC streetcars) The M-3's provided much higher speeds, but the structure created limitations on these cars as well. I-95 was designed to support much higher speeds ( being conceived in a different era for a different purpose) so any comparison of the MFSE and I 95 in the area of speed will, naturally, not favor the MFSE.

But since the speed limit on southbound I-95 between Bridge Street and Vine street is usually 0 to 20 mph on a NORMAL rush hour morning, the fact that I-95 is decades newer than the El is meaningless.

How often do you hear it on 1060? "Southbound 95 jammed Bridge to Allegheny, then slow to Girard, jammed again to the Vine...."

It's only 11 stops to Spring Garden, how come the El can't do that in 10-15 minutes? Could they increase speeds during rush hour?

They need to do better with the A-B system. In fact, except for very early and very late, I don't see why they can't run A-B all the time. There are alot of "lightly" patronized stops on both sides of the system (Millbourne, Berks, etc.). People would appreciate a faster trip.

The best thing I like about the KYW traffic reports is, its a minute of this that and the other road being delayed followed by "Mass transit, no reported delays..."