Quote:
Originally Posted by Cro Burnham
I'm all for a combined map like that above even though it does create the false impression of an integrated user-friendly European-style transit network.
The solution to the confusion that might create is simply to put a prominent disclaimer on the map stating something along the lines of "WARNING - no attempt has been made to coordinate transfers between rapid transit, regional rail, and non-SEPTA transit agency operations. Transfers at such points may involve lengthy wait times, and will require purchase of new fares . . . But someday we'll get our act together".
But a consolidated map along the lines above is partly informational, partly aspirational. It serves as a constant reminder of what should be given the great infrastructure and potential for useful transfer points that we have but can't take advantage of given budget, labor work rule, and administrative - but not physical - constraints
Regarding the MFL A and B lines, am I the only person who feels that they are a really silly and unnecessary complication? I could see the need for them if MFL was longer or had splits, but it's such a short, simple line why bother? I feel like it's a legacy from when planners had bigger ideas for the system, but now it's kind of meaningless.
|
Eh, Paris, a notable European city, has a map that combined rapid transit and regional rail:
http://www.ratp.fr/informer/pdf/orienter/f_plan.php
The RER (regional rail) is mapped right along with rapid transit/subway lines (the numbered lines) and trams ("(T)" lines). I think the fare is better coordinated, but that'll be true of SEPTA once Key is out, leaving only PATCO/NJ Transit to be awkward outsider. And I don't think that's enough to say this map is useless.