View Single Post
  #368  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2010, 7:58 PM
volguus zildrohar's Avatar
volguus zildrohar volguus zildrohar is offline
I Couldn't Tell Anyone
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The City Of Philadelphia
Posts: 15,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
It will reduce the ridership on PATH, though, since Midtown-bound commuters can take the 7 down 42nd instead of NJT to Hoboken, transfer to PATH to Herald Square.

That means PATH can run less trains, lay off some drivers and mechanics, and greatly reduce their operating expenses. Or they could reallocate their service to run more off-peak trains and capture more choice riders.



New York just had the advantage of having massive boundaries from the start, enclosing a good 305 sq. miles and five entire counties. When the subway system was built, the termini were way out in the farm fields. It had enough room to contain almost all of its own growth within city limits until Levittown in the 50s. Most of the subway termini are several miles from the city boundary in Queens, so clearly it was never a matter of "build up to the line, but never past it".

Chicago only has 227 sq mi, and it continuously annexed streetcar suburbs, so it grew incrementally along with transit. The fact that rapid transit service extends into a few suburbs is only because the city tried and failed to annex those suburbs (Evanston, Oak Park) or because the rapid transit is merely a remnant of the regional interurban network (Skokie, Forest Park).

Philly has some odd geography that puts the suburb of University City just across the river from Center City, so of course rapid transit would go there - it's too close to avoid.

Boston was a tiny city to begin with, and it was never able to annex its suburbs the way other cities did.
University City isn't a suburb. It's been part of the city since 1854.

When was the last time Chicago annexed land (apart from anything related to O'Hare)?
__________________
je suis phillytrax sur FLICKR, y'all
Reply With Quote