Talk:SEPTA

Incidents section

I would argue that the Incidents section is inappropriate here. These are two standalone events that, although they generated media attention at the time, did no result in any long-term change to SEPTA's operation. Any rail system, or highway, or building, or <insert random location here> can become the venue at which a crime occurs; it does not mean that the location is tied to the crime or the crime to the location. Listing these events here gives undue weight to events which would not otherwise be notable. (Does either event have its own Wikipedia page?) If there are reliable sources to claim that SEPTA is a particularly crime-ridden rail system, we should include those in a "Crime" section, and then, perhaps, these two events could serve as examples, but since there does not seem to be a discussion of crime on SEPTA, there should not be a discussion of these two incidents. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly agree in the case of the second assault, which it seems could have just as easily happened on any other service and is only trivially tied to SEPTA. The first one is a little bit different, as it was SEPTA employees that reported the crime and arrested the individual. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Between 2019 and 2021, robberies and assaults nearly doubled on SEPTA. SEPTA is not crime ridden but it certainly has incidence spikes during pandemic which needs a mention in article. But it should also be mentioned what SEPTA is doing to resolve such issues, like installing 28,000 cameras, replacing security guards contractors with ambassador guides who travel in SEPTA trains for improving security. A Crime section with statistics and remediation activities is certainly justified. Redlion06 (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the info,WikiDan, as I am new to this and was asked by management to get involved I am not familiar with the procedures. I shared your feedback with them and it was appreciated. I cannot say the same for Fyrael, as the tone of your feedback was bordering on petty. It was clear from my attempts, account history and wording that I am inexperienced. I am happy for constructive help, even criticism but did not appreciate the way you jumped in. I will be sure to follow whatever guidelines are laid out if I ever need to revisit anything like this. Thank you. TheBatmanCometh (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

For comparison, the NJ Transit article has an Incidents section, but it only covers actual rail accidents rather than crimes that took place on the system. History of the New York City Subway has a Crime section which mostly discusses trends, but does include a paragraph about one high-profile incident. Chicago "L" again mostly mentions rail accidents and general safety. @TheBatmanCometh: you mentioned that you think these events could be better placed on a separate article about SEPTA complaints and incidents. Do you have additional content to flesh out such an article? If so, that could be a solution.

I'm sorry that you found my insistence that you try to actually collaborate to be petty. Hopefully you've now read the policies I guided you to and understand. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fyrael: I've spun off the old material into a new draft article Draft:October 2021 sexual assault on SEPTA train. I agree with you that this incident may be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, but agree with WikiDan that it should not be on SEPTA's main page and is best to be spun off into its own article.--WuTang94 (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fyrael: In the case of the first incident, where SEPTA personnel reported the crime: again, I don't know that this really matters. If SEPTA personnel were committing the crime, you might have a point, but the fact that, in a given situation, the authority figures available at the situation were the ones to handle the situation seems kind of like the normal, expected state of affairs. The event is not otherwise notable, as it does not appear to have led to any changes in SEPTA's policies or services, so why bring it up at all? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I originally added the first incident to the page, but after hearing your arguments, I'm beginning to agree with why both incidents were removed. I completely agree that the second one seems like a more normal incident that doesn't need to be on Wikipedia, but the first one I figured was a bit more noteworthy, given the unique circumstances that led to the suspect's arrest and what appears to be either groupthink or mob mentality on the passengers. Either way, no SEPTA employee committed the crime (it was actually an off-duty employee who called 911) so I can see why it wouldn't fit here. If the first incident is indeed inappropriate for the main SEPTA page, I'm beginning to consider whether that incident is notable enough to be branched off into its own page or listed as an example of groupthink, mob mentality, etc. on their respective pages.--WuTang94 (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

For potential article names, would October 2021 sexual assault on SEPTA train work? Google search results under "SEPTA sexual assault" refer to that incident, but I feel the first name would be less defamatory on SEPTA's part than "2021 SEPTA sexual assault", if that was TheBatmanCometh's main concern.

When people look toward you (Wikipedia), should you (Wikipedia) look other way?

We can not go back in time and find out from early encyclopedia users about how much of their purpose of referring to geography related encyclopedia articles used to be about safety when they or their beloved travel to lesser known lands or places where they would have lesser control over unfolding situations. So what I mean to say is 'safety' is a legitimate concern of encyclopedic curiosity of encyclopedic audience. Audiences look towards encyclopedias as reliable media those being balanced even if not perfect enough.

This reminds me, in pandemic times when mask mandate mattered most Wikipedia made toned down mentions, in kind of looking other way for some perceived Wikipedia rulings as equivalent of Biblical inerrancy.

The Philadelfia Inquirer, has published a statement of one 'John Chin' which says

"..There is demand that the Philadelphia School District address their failures. There is a demand that SEPTA address their failures. We hold them accountable to provide our students safety in our schools, in the buses, subways, and trains.."

References

Now there is a statement published in an independent news paper then, on part of Wikipedians, is it okay enough to do original research saying SEPTA has no responsibilities towards commuter safety.

If SEPTA has responsibilities towards over all commuter safety and if their is a systemic failure of whatever kind and an allegation is there then it's better it finds space in the article with explanatory statement from SEPTA than looking other way with no information. Otherwise that amounts to breach of trust of audience by the encyclopedia and encyclopedists. IMHO.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: Again, your limited command of English makes it hard to understand what you are arguing for here. The sentence ...is it okay enough to do original research saying SEPTA has no responsibilities towards commuter safety. doesn't really parse well in English. I believe what you are asking is "is this Philadelphia Enquirer article sufficient evidence that SEPTA does not take sufficient responsibility for commuter safety?" And to that, my answer is NO. This is a single quote, from a single aggrieved individual, demanding that SEPTA do better after a single incident. That is not sufficient evidence that SEPTA is generally considered an unsafe commuter rail system. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Any Wikipedian assuming 'SEPTA does not have reasonable responsibility for commuter safety'. So assuming untoward incidences brings no responsibility on SEPTA ('hence incidence lacks relevance to the article') is in itself amounts to WP:OR.

What is important is relevance of incidence to the article SEPTA and thinking over generally SEPTA is safe or not and deciding about the same by any Wikipedian amounts to WP:OR.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: Again, your limited English is making it difficult for me to understand your point. Any Wikipedia assuming 'SEPTA does not have reasonable responsibility for commuter safety'. is an incomplete sentence fragment, and therefore does not convey any meaning. So assuming untoward incidences brings no responsibility on SEPTA ('hence incidence lacks relevance to the article') is in itself amounts to WP:OR. is a flawed argument. Basically what you are saying (I think -- again, limited English is obscuring your points) is that "since some incidents have occurred, it is original research to assume that these incidents are not significant and should be reported." No, that's not how WP:NOR works. What is needed is a reliable source to state that SEPTA has been generally perceived by the public or by some relevant public authority to be an unsafe system. If no reliable source can be found to back that statement, the inclusion of isolated incidents to attempt to imply that conclusion violates neutrality. But once again, Bookku, you and I will disagree and come to no conclusion. So once again, I will disengage with you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Above response attempts to move the goalpost. The question is of relevance, 9/11 attacks on Twin tower were isolated incidence and there was no mistake on part of those towers still in spite of no mistake on part of the towers and incidence being isolated still remains relevant to the towers.

So to judge only on being isolated incidence is not sufficient. You are very much welcome to disagree, but irrespective of claimed interpretation of customs, judging so on ones own seems like original research on Wikipedian part.

This is just a content dispute and nothing personal. You need not reply. Where there is a difference of opinion, it is for rest of Wikipedians to decide in due course. I am also taking a break from this engagement for a while. Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Reference to academic study

This academic study even before October 2021 incidence is the evidence it is certainly not isolated relationship.

• Conclusions

"..Public transit in Philadelphia appears to be associated with elevated violent crime in the surrounding community. Areas around subway stations may require greater security to control crime during its operational hours. Passengers may serve as guardians to deter some crimes when the public transit is operational..."

— Yuhao Wu, Greg Ridgeway, "Effect of public transit on crime: evidence from SEPTA strikes in Philadelphia", Journal of Experimental Criminology (17, pages 267–286 (2021) Published 25 Jan 2020)

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That's certainly interesting, but seems completely unrelated to crime on the SEPTA system itself. It is instead studying "the surrounding community". I don't know if we have an article about the general association between public transit centers and crime, but at least by the fear-mongering that often accompanies such projects it's probably a notable topic itself. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

SEPTA Metro

I was intrigued when I heard of the SEPTA Metro proposals, and thought it would be quite fun to research this a bit more, and give the topic a dedicated section in the article, or even an article of its own. I thought it might be nice to include a table explaining the old and new designations of services and their logos. But I don't want to start this until I hear whether people think it's a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draqueeb (talk • contribs) 23:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Since it seems like the existing progress on this front has been lackluster, I've taken it upon myself to do some edits needed for SEPTA Metro. There was already some prior progress, but I restructured the "Routes" section around the "three networks" concept as listed on the unification and reorganization, primarily according to the diagram there. I copied much of the table from List of SEPTA Metro stations (props to User:Cards84664 for doing a great job on that!) and added some other info that was here in the previous iteration of the section, like 2018 ridership stats. My first iteration is somewhat barebones and might be a bit too minimalist to some, so feel free to overwrite my work or revert if there's a better way of going about it (just let me know if you do so).

Eventually SEPTA Metro should get its own article, like SEPTA Regional Rail has. I used User:Dream_out_loud/SEPTA_Metro as a reference, though I now realize there is a draft at Draft:SEPTA_Metro that I didn't notice earlier. Emma Lexi Triphora (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I made some edits to Draft:SEPTA Metro, and I submitted it for review. Robert McClenon recommended that I discuss the notability of SEPTA Metro on this talk page. Hence, I'll ask you: should SEPTA Metro be made into an article? I would appreciate an answer soon. -SleepTrain456 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Is SEPTA Regional Rail the first contactless commuter rail service?

Regarding the NFC Payments section: From what I can tell, TriMet's WES Commuter Rail has allowed contactless payments since 2022 via the Hop Fastpass readers. I don't know if that really counts since WES is such a tiny service, but it could be worth updating. 1e1001 (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Car barns

Callowhill Depot

Callowhill Depot is a bus and trolley barn operated by SEPTA, located in West Philadelphia. It was built in 1913 by the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company (PRT) and was later operated by the Philadelphia Transportation Company (PTC) before being taken over by SEPTA. The depot was constructed as part of the Thomas E. Mitten modernization program. Since its construction, the depot has suffered fire damage and reconstruction in 1949, 1950, and 1995.

The Callowhill Depot is located in the heart of West Philadelphia, located on the southwest corner of the 5900 block of Callowhill Street with the bus and trolley bays across the street. The depot is surrounded by 59th, Vine, 58th, and Callowhill streets. Callowhill Depot was an all-trolley depot until May 28, 1955, when Route 70 (52nd Street Line) was converted to bus operation. Callowhill Depot was the base of all streetcar routes that operated in West Philadelphia, until National City Lines converted most of them to buses.

Callowhill Depot is home to two SEPTA trolley routes and 11 bus routes. The depot's trolley bays are 2, 3 and 4. Bay 2 is the rail shop, bay 3 is used by the T1, and bay 4 is used by the G. These routes all operate in West Philadelphia, with their eastern terminus being either in downtown Center City, Philadelphia or North Philadelphia. Djflem (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Elmwood Carhouse.

Elmwood Carhouse replaced the vintage Woodland Carhouse, which was located at 49th–Woodland (but part of the Woodland facilities continue to be used for overhaul work). On October 23, 1975, part of Woodland carbarn suffered a devastating fire in which around 60 trolleys and about half of the building were destroyed. The Elmwood Carhouse officially opened on November 15, 1981.

Another row of K-Cars in 2015

The Elmwood Carhouse, also known as Elmwood Depot, Elmwood Loop, and Elmwood Avenue Loop, is a storage facility and former alternate terminus for the T5 trolley route in the Elmwood Park section of Southwest Philadelphia. Besides cars from the T5, the facility is used to store and maintain cars from the T4, T3, and T2. From September 1992 to September 2005, T1 trolleys were housed here as well; however, with the restoration of the trolley service to Route 15 (G1) in 2005, the Route 10 (T1) trolleys are stored at the Callowhill Carhouse. T Trolleys run from here to Eastwick Loop or to Center City Philadelphia.

The official address of the carhouse is at 7311 W Elmwood Avenue; it is adjacent to 73rd–Elmwood station is a SEPTA Metro

A decorative arch bridge carries the NEC/Wilmington/Newark Line right-of-way over Island Road and the trolley tracks between the T4 and T5. Between the Eastwick Loop and Elmwood Depot, the trolleys have their own right-of-way for a short period in the middle of Island Road where the tracks are not on a paved street and the wooden ties are visible.

Outside the yard, there are connections to SEPTA City Bus Route 68 and SEPTA Suburban Bus Route 108.