As I know there are posts about I-95 and I-476, but this is about a specific point, from the Delaware Line on I-95 to the I-476 Exit (aka the blue route). I just have a list of questions and opinions about this.
1.Why would traffic planners think that merging I-495 and I-95 together into Pa into a 3 lane roadway. When I-495 is 3 lanes and I-95 is 2 lanes, they could have at least made I-95, a Interstate highway which is handling a big load of traffic 4 LANES! I understand it costs money to build things but you really have to look at numbers and planning in order to do things right I guess planning ahead is a thing of the future.
2. Were there different routes that 95 was gonna take? was it always supposed to go through the heart of Chesters riverfront? Because the only way they could expand to 4 lanes from exit 1 to exit 7, it will require a hell of a lot of gutting of houses and roadway, Im surprised that part of 95 is even legal.
3.I understand Chester is a poor city but Pa needs to step in and help, this is a main area and I'm pretty sure that fixing the highway will help the area around it. I understand at one point that 495 would have been the connection to 476, Crazy thinking*. But if it did, I could imagine the free flowing traffic of I-476 without the stopping of traffic every half of mile.
4.Would 476 be fixed if a third lane was added in both directions? it seems like the only problem is merging traffic and the amount of cars on the road is over capacity, they should make it a law that people have to move over when driving by on and off ramps, so traffic will not stop flowing and cars can merge easily.
Quote from: Tonytone on September 11, 2018, 09:34:28 PM
1.Why would traffic planners think that merging I-495 and I-95 together into Pa into a 3 lane roadway. When I-495 is 3 lanes and I-95 is 2 lanes, they could have at least made I-95, a Interstate highway which is handling a big load of traffic 4 LANES! I understand it costs money to build things but you really have to look at numbers and planning in order to do things right I guess planning ahead is a thing of the future.
Two separate states involved. I-95 was completed by 1968 between Maryland and the north edge of Chester. Six lanes in PA probably looked adequate at that point. I-495 was already planned at that point but the lane number was probably not determined, I surmise that it may have been planned with 4 lanes (2 each way). I-495 was completed in 1977 with 6 lanes (3 each way).
Quote from: Tonytone on September 11, 2018, 09:34:28 PM
2. Were there different routes that 95 was gonna take? was it always supposed to go through the heart of Chesters riverfront? Because the only way they could expand to 4 lanes from exit 1 to exit 7, it will require a hell of a lot of gutting of houses and roadway, Im surprised that part of 95 is even legal.
I don't believe so. Other than bypassing just north of Marcus Hook and Chester, where it was built, I don't see another logical direct routing.
1. I think the stretch through Chester was built in a 6 lane bathtub with no chance to widen it to 8 lanes. It was built well before I-476 was completed, back when traffic volumes were much lighter overall. There's no good way to take care of it right now, unless your crazy thinking brought a parallel I-495 north.
2. Grandfathered in - built before modern standards. I'm sure different routes were studied, but others can weigh in.
3. Enough other places need help. A city needs strong leadership from within to change - see New York and Newark.
4. Absolutely, but the law allowing 476 requires it to be two lanes down there. Such is life. You can't make a law requiring people to move over. That is far worse for congestion than letting traffic sort itself out.
When I-95 through Chester was first built, not only did I-476 not yet exist (I-476 between there and Mac Dade Blvd. opened circa 1988 and I-476 north of Mac Dade opened Dec. 1991) but the Commodore Barry Bridge wasn't yet built & open either (the bridge opened circa 1974). A ferry carrying US 322 traffic across the Delaware existed back then.
Six lanes of I-95 through Chester sans the I-476 & US 322 eastbound interchanges probably wasn't as problematic as it is today. A sizable chunk of traffic between those two interchanges is, no doubt, through-traffic between the bridge & I-476. Why DRPA & PennDOT either didn't coordinate nor agree on a common alignment between the bridge approach & I-476 aren't known (i.e. had such happened, the Blue Route would've crossed over I-95 and directly connected to the Commodore Barry Bridge). Such would've reduced/eliminated most of the I-95-associated bottlenecks in the area.
As many here know, the alignment of I-476 & its Blue Route moniker dates back decades earlier when the highway was first planned, the blue alignment was the one that was ultimately chosen (other alignments colored in green, red & yellow also existed in the proposal as well). I'm not sure which one of the other color-keyed alignments would've been better in-synch with the Commodore Barry Bridge. Additionally, it's worth noting that the southernmost part of I-476 (between Mac Dade Blvd. & I-95) was constructed as a 6-laner. The misguided scale-down to 4-lanes occurs just north of there.
That said, the widening of the 4-lane portion of I-476 to a 6-laner between Exits 1 (Mac Dade Blvd.) & Exit 9 (PA 3/West Chester Pike) would not impact nor involve any alteration of its interchange with I-95. Such a widening could be theoretically done without any additional land-takings/right-of-way acquisitions. The reason being that the corridor could be widened from the inside. The 4-lane stretch was designed with a future inward-widening in mind. A fully six-lane Blue Route in this area would not only smooth out or eliminate the northbound bottlenecks at/just north of Mac Dade but such would likely address any related spill-over backups at I-95... at least near/at the Exit 7 ramps.
Another issue with the I-95/476 interchange (which was built roughly 20 years prior to I-476 opening) is that fact that the through-I-95 corridor is only four lanes; it's six lanes south of it & eight lanes north of it. Even prior to I-476 opening, the interchange was always a traffic bottle-neck during rush hours (the occurrences/duration of that bottleneck has worsened during the past decade). In hindsight and at the very least, the 4-lane portion through the interchange should've been built as a six-laner.
Regarding the I-95/495 merge; there is a short stretch (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Boothwyn,+PA/@39.8215372,-75.4466579,736m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c6e5b6eb26af09:0x2049386149b62db2!8m2!3d39.8301125!4d-75.4415843) just north of the merge where I-95 northbound is four lanes (it drops to three just prior to the Welcome Center exit). IIRC that short widening of the northbound stretch took place circa 1991-1992; around the same time that most of the current BGS' were erected. In hindsight, that widening could've went a little further. Interestingly, the southbound stretch was never widened.
Quote from: Tonytone on September 11, 2018, 09:34:28 PM
2. Were there different routes that 95 was gonna take? was it always supposed to go through the heart of Chesters riverfront? Because the only way they could expand to 4 lanes from exit 1 to exit 7, it will require a hell of a lot of gutting of houses and roadway, Im surprised that part of 95 is even legal.
What would make it illegal? I-95 in this area met all the standards when built. One area of issue is the very short stretch of highway Northbound between the onramp at Interchange 1 and the offramp at Interchange 2, where an auxiliary lane should've been used. The US 322 interchange is a clusterfuck as well, and while PennDOT has looked at it and came up with some solutions, they greatly relaxed the timeline for this project to be completed. As you mentioned, between Exits 3 and 7, it's squeezed in that area, but there's certainly nothing illegal about it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 12, 2018, 10:21:37 AM
Six lanes of I-95 through Chester sans the I-476 & US 322 eastbound interchanges probably wasn't as problematic as it is today. A sizable chunk of traffic between those two interchanges is, no doubt, through-traffic between the bridge & I-476. Why DRPA & PennDOT either didn't coordinate nor agree on a common alignment between the bridge approach & I-476 aren't known (i.e. had such happened, the Blue Route would've crossed over I-95 and directly connected to the Commodore Barry Bridge). Such would've reduced/eliminated most of the I-95-associated bottlenecks in the area.
Personally, the DVRPC is largely at fault for this. As their name indicates for those that don't know (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission), they are supposed to be responsible for the REGIONAL transportation network. If a project occurs in one area, they should be looking at how it affects traffic in other areas, well prior to any funding being provided. All projects funded in the 5 county Philly area and 4 county NJ suburbs for Philly need to be approved by the DVRPC. In the case of I-476 (among many others), they solely looked at that highway and approved funding for that highway without any consideration whatsoever as to how it would affect other highways. At the very minimum, they should've shoe-horned in a 4th lane between 476 and the Commodore Barry Bridge, knowing that I-476 to US 322 into NJ would be serving as an efficient bypass of I-76 and NJ 42.
Unfortunately, with the railroad tracks and neighborhood in that area, along with the neighborhood along the short concurrent stretch of I-95 and US 322, any widening would be at the expense of the neighborhood, or they would have to triple-deck I-95 over the existing overpasses.
Quote from: PHLBOSAnother issue with the I-95/476 interchange (which was built roughly 20 years prior to I-476 opening) is that fact that the through-I-95 corridor is only four lanes; it's six lanes south of it & eight lanes north of it. Even prior to I-476 opening, the interchange was always a traffic bottle-neck during rush hours (the occurrences/duration of that bottleneck has worsened during the past decade). In hindsight and at the very least, the 4-lane portion through the interchange should've been built as a six-laner.
Northbound, yes. But southbound this would have created a just-as-bad (if not worse) bottleneck due to the volume of traffic that enters from 476 and the lack of space to construct additional lanes south of the merge as Jeff noted.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 10:42:51 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on September 11, 2018, 09:34:28 PM
2. Were there different routes that 95 was gonna take? was it always supposed to go through the heart of Chesters riverfront? Because the only way they could expand to 4 lanes from exit 1 to exit 7, it will require a hell of a lot of gutting of houses and roadway, Im surprised that part of 95 is even legal.
What would make it illegal? I-95 in this area met all the standards when built. One area of issue is the very short stretch of highway Northbound between the onramp at Interchange 1 and the offramp at Interchange 2, where an auxiliary lane should've been used. The US 322 interchange is a clusterfuck as well, and while PennDOT has looked at it and came up with some solutions, they greatly relaxed the timeline for this project to be completed. As you mentioned, between Exits 3 and 7, it's squeezed in that area, but there's certainly nothing illegal about it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 12, 2018, 10:21:37 AM
Six lanes of I-95 through Chester sans the I-476 & US 322 eastbound interchanges probably wasn't as problematic as it is today. A sizable chunk of traffic between those two interchanges is, no doubt, through-traffic between the bridge & I-476. Why DRPA & PennDOT either didn't coordinate nor agree on a common alignment between the bridge approach & I-476 aren't known (i.e. had such happened, the Blue Route would've crossed over I-95 and directly connected to the Commodore Barry Bridge). Such would've reduced/eliminated most of the I-95-associated bottlenecks in the area.
Personally, the DVRPC is largely at fault for this. As their name indicates for those that don't know (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission), they are supposed to be responsible for the REGIONAL transportation network. If a project occurs in one area, they should be looking at how it affects traffic in other areas, well prior to any funding being provided. All projects funded in the 5 county Philly area and 4 county NJ suburbs for Philly need to be approved by the DVRPC. In the case of I-476 (among many others), they solely looked at that highway and approved funding for that highway without any consideration whatsoever as to how it would affect other highways. At the very minimum, they should've shoe-horned in a 4th lane between 476 and the Commodore Barry Bridge, knowing that I-476 to US 322 into NJ would be serving as an efficient bypass of I-76 and NJ 42.
Unfortunately, with the railroad tracks and neighborhood in that area, along with the neighborhood along the short concurrent stretch of I-95 and US 322, any widening would be at the expense of the neighborhood, or they would have to triple-deck I-95 over the existing overpasses.
Woo a triple deck. I thought of that, is it even possible? & there is a post on this forum that shows pictures of the alignments of 476. One of which went directly to the Commodore barry.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on September 12, 2018, 11:27:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 10:42:51 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on September 11, 2018, 09:34:28 PM
2. Were there different routes that 95 was gonna take? was it always supposed to go through the heart of Chesters riverfront? Because the only way they could expand to 4 lanes from exit 1 to exit 7, it will require a hell of a lot of gutting of houses and roadway, Im surprised that part of 95 is even legal.
What would make it illegal? I-95 in this area met all the standards when built. One area of issue is the very short stretch of highway Northbound between the onramp at Interchange 1 and the offramp at Interchange 2, where an auxiliary lane should've been used. The US 322 interchange is a clusterfuck as well, and while PennDOT has looked at it and came up with some solutions, they greatly relaxed the timeline for this project to be completed. As you mentioned, between Exits 3 and 7, it's squeezed in that area, but there's certainly nothing illegal about it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 12, 2018, 10:21:37 AM
Six lanes of I-95 through Chester sans the I-476 & US 322 eastbound interchanges probably wasn't as problematic as it is today. A sizable chunk of traffic between those two interchanges is, no doubt, through-traffic between the bridge & I-476. Why DRPA & PennDOT either didn't coordinate nor agree on a common alignment between the bridge approach & I-476 aren't known (i.e. had such happened, the Blue Route would've crossed over I-95 and directly connected to the Commodore Barry Bridge). Such would've reduced/eliminated most of the I-95-associated bottlenecks in the area.
Personally, the DVRPC is largely at fault for this. As their name indicates for those that don't know (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission), they are supposed to be responsible for the REGIONAL transportation network. If a project occurs in one area, they should be looking at how it affects traffic in other areas, well prior to any funding being provided. All projects funded in the 5 county Philly area and 4 county NJ suburbs for Philly need to be approved by the DVRPC. In the case of I-476 (among many others), they solely looked at that highway and approved funding for that highway without any consideration whatsoever as to how it would affect other highways. At the very minimum, they should've shoe-horned in a 4th lane between 476 and the Commodore Barry Bridge, knowing that I-476 to US 322 into NJ would be serving as an efficient bypass of I-76 and NJ 42.
Unfortunately, with the railroad tracks and neighborhood in that area, along with the neighborhood along the short concurrent stretch of I-95 and US 322, any widening would be at the expense of the neighborhood, or they would have to triple-deck I-95 over the existing overpasses.
Woo a triple deck. I thought of that, is it even possible? & there is a post on this forum that shows pictures of the alignments of 476. One of which went directly to the Commodore barry.
iPhone
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180912/ea5fd45ef79cc809fc49e1f7cfe9da90.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180912/7c92ca5d0d3c0e5becb4ac46cdadbbab.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180912/9b5a613e573f87fc79d8fc5c63b44e30.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180912/638cf9b752d207e707208203563e5c9d.jpg)
" Pictures Courtesy of another user"
By my understanding Route C was choose.
iPhone
^ From the long ago thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7775.0)...
QuoteBy my understanding Route C was choose.
Actually, something closer to "Route B".
We can only hope that the people living along I-95 northeast of the Bridge are as eager to move out as the people southwest of the bridge were when PennDOT announced their still-delayed widening project.
Also, while I agree that it should feed directly into the bridge, the Blue Route was never planned to.
The Green Route was. :bigass:
Quote from: froggie on September 12, 2018, 11:19:37 AM
Quote from: PHLBOSAnother issue with the I-95/476 interchange (which was built roughly 20 years prior to I-476 opening) is that fact that the through-I-95 corridor is only four lanes; it's six lanes south of it & eight lanes north of it. Even prior to I-476 opening, the interchange was always a traffic bottle-neck during rush hours (the occurrences/duration of that bottleneck has worsened during the past decade). In hindsight and at the very least, the 4-lane portion through the interchange should've been built as a six-laner.
Northbound, yes. But southbound this would have created a just-as-bad (if not worse) bottleneck due to the volume of traffic that enters from 476 and the lack of space to construct additional lanes south of the merge as Jeff noted.
IIRC, we had this discussion before on either another thread and/or on FB. While the stretch of I-95 south of the Bullens Lane indeed restricts even a temporary widening to four southbound lanes beyond the I-476 merge; in retrospect, the geometry of the I-95/476 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8666393,-75.3488038,1048m/data=!3m1!1e3) could have been slightly re-aligned (did the I-95 ramps from I-476 southbound really need to 'bow' to the west or was such indeed the only choice (I'm not fully convinced)?) to have the onramp to I-95 southbound from I-476 meet the mainline I-95 earlier and maintain a six-lane I-95 mainline within the interchange.
Quote from: Tonytone on September 12, 2018, 11:27:21 AM
Woo a triple deck. I thought of that, is it even possible?...
Anything's possible. Just takes money, political will, and resident will!
I say Triple Deck because of the numerous cross streets going over I-95 in the Chester Area. Since they couldn't be raised due to the surrounding area, the only feasible solution would be to put 95 (north or south) over those overpasses, over 95 (south or north), if a direct widening wasn't possible.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 01:45:15 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on September 12, 2018, 11:27:21 AM
Woo a triple deck. I thought of that, is it even possible?...
Anything's possible. Just takes money, political will, and resident will!
I say Triple Deck because of the numerous cross streets going over I-95 in the Chester Area. Since they couldn't be raised due to the surrounding area, the only feasible solution would be to put 95 (north or south) over those overpasses, over 95 (south or north), if a direct widening wasn't possible.
So basically a upper & lower deck like gwb
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on September 12, 2018, 01:47:13 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 01:45:15 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on September 12, 2018, 11:27:21 AM
Woo a triple deck. I thought of that, is it even possible?...
Anything's possible. Just takes money, political will, and resident will!
I say Triple Deck because of the numerous cross streets going over I-95 in the Chester Area. Since they couldn't be raised due to the surrounding area, the only feasible solution would be to put 95 (north or south) over those overpasses, over 95 (south or north), if a direct widening wasn't possible.
So basically a upper & lower deck like gwb
iPhone
Upper deck, cross streets, lower deck. I'm trying to think of something like that off-hand.
The example of a triple decker is quite close really. Though it's not completed yet. And it's for a shorter distance. But it's how I-295 will go over I-76 and Browning Road in New Jersey.
But granted it's not one route on two of the three levels.
But in my idea you could have I-476 use the third deck and run on top of I-95 and have it tie into the bridge over to NJ. I-476 would in effect end at US 322 and I-95. And then traffic from I476 would not join I-95 south until after the exit for the bridge. But that's pure fictional.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 01:56:28 PM
Upper deck, cross streets, lower deck. I'm trying to think of something like that off-hand.
I give you, the LBJ TEXpress lanes in Dallas (which, ok, is bi-directional
raceway HOT lanes, cross streets, regular bi-directional Interstate at some locations)
(https://cbsdallas.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/screen-shot-2015-09-09-at-11-06-24-am.png?w=625)
Quote from: BrianP on September 12, 2018, 03:12:47 PM
The example of a triple decker is quite close really. Though it's not completed yet. And it's for a shorter distance. But it's how I-295 will go over I-76 and Browning Road in New Jersey.
But granted it's not one route on two of the three levels.
But in my idea you could have I-476 use the third deck and run on top of I-95 and have it tie into the bridge over to NJ. I-476 would in effect end at US 322 and I-95. And then traffic from I476 would not join I-95 south until after the exit for the bridge. But that's pure fictional.
I was thinking about that. Although that's actually going to be a 4 decker (almost):
Bottom tier (Below Ground level): 295 South to 42 South.
2nd Tier (Ground level): I-76/NJ 42, some ramps
3rd Tier: Browning Road
4th Tier: I-295, some ramps.
But otherwise, exactly the concept I was thinking about.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 03:40:16 PM
Quote from: BrianP on September 12, 2018, 03:12:47 PM
The example of a triple decker is quite close really. Though it's not completed yet. And it's for a shorter distance. But it's how I-295 will go over I-76 and Browning Road in New Jersey.
But granted it's not one route on two of the three levels.
But in my idea you could have I-476 use the third deck and run on top of I-95 and have it tie into the bridge over to NJ. I-476 would in effect end at US 322 and I-95. And then traffic from I476 would not join I-95 south until after the exit for the bridge. But that's pure fictional.
I was thinking about that. Although that's actually going to be a 4 decker (almost):
Bottom tier (Below Ground level): 295 South to 42 South.
2nd Tier (Ground level): I-76/NJ 42, some ramps
3rd Tier: Browning Road
4th Tier: I-295, some ramps.
But otherwise, exactly the concept I was thinking about.
As I see it Pa would never approve of something so smart. They would make the lanes skinner & try to fit a 4th lane in before that. The probably only logical way would be so dig into the shoulder of both sides of I-95 after exit 1 when no more middle median in left . Then reconfigure the 322 & 476 interchanges with a new connector so traffic will not impede 95 traffic.
iPhone
Quote from: Flyer78 on September 12, 2018, 03:32:19 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 01:56:28 PM
Upper deck, cross streets, lower deck. I'm trying to think of something like that off-hand.
I give you, the LBJ TEXpress lanes in Dallas (which, ok, is bi-directional raceway HOT lanes, cross streets, regular bi-directional Interstate at some locations)
(https://cbsdallas.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/screen-shot-2015-09-09-at-11-06-24-am.png?w=625)
Austin has a better one.
Actually now that I think about it. Would a new bridge from where the current 476 interchange is that would span to new jersey be a option? The amount of traffic around in the whole tristate area has increased tremendously. A new bridge would reduce traffic on the old bridge & highway. Maybe making it even cheaper then making the whole highway 4 lanes each way. All they would have to do is repave & just do some safety upgrades & boom you got a freeflowing I-95, I-476 kinda.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on September 12, 2018, 08:50:48 PM
Actually now that I think about it. Would a new bridge from where the current 476 interchange is that would span to new jersey be a option? The amount of traffic around in the whole tristate area has increased tremendously. A new bridge would reduce traffic on the old bridge & highway. Maybe making it even cheaper then making the whole highway 4 lanes each way. All they would have to do is repave & just do some safety upgrades & boom you got a freeflowing I-95, I-476 kinda.
There's really not much on the NJ side is the issue.
Quote from: Tonytone on September 12, 2018, 08:50:48 PM
Actually now that I think about it. Would a new bridge from where the current 476 interchange is that would span to new jersey be a option? The amount of traffic around in the whole tristate area has increased tremendously. A new bridge would reduce traffic on the old bridge & highway. Maybe making it even cheaper then making the whole highway 4 lanes each way. All they would have to do is repave & just do some safety upgrades & boom you got a freeflowing I-95, I-476 kinda.
The Commodore Barry Bridge carries about 35,000 AADT on 5 lanes, the middle lane reversible with a Zipper barrier. Really no need for any more capacity for far into the future.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180913/807ab2c2575a36094f0ce28b5de224ba.png)
Well from what AA Roads 476 page. This information says that a 6 lane highway will be done by 2021
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 12:43:46 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180913/807ab2c2575a36094f0ce28b5de224ba.png)
Well from what AA Roads 476 page. This information says that a 6 lane highway will be done by 2021
Good to know, but that's the Northeast Extension part of I-476 that's being widened not the Blue Route (free) portion. To borrow from the Frontier Airlines slogan; that's
a whole different animal.
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2018, 09:42:46 AM
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
Something should happen. I-476 is extremely over capacity during rush hours. & If Pa thinks the signals on the ramps will solve the problem they wont. They are already failing now.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2018, 09:42:46 AM
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
Something should happen. I-476 is extremely over capacity during rush hours. & If Pa thinks the signals on the ramps will solve the problem they wont. They are already failing now.
Within a year after that highway opened; it was already exceeding its then-projected 20-year traffic counts.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2018, 09:42:46 AM
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
Something should happen. I-476 is extremely over capacity during rush hours. & If Pa thinks the signals on the ramps will solve the problem they wont. They are already failing now.
Within a year after that highway opened; it was already exceeding its then-projected 20-year traffic counts.
So maybe a bypass of 95 & 476 should be created. "Thru traffic & local traffic" as Delaware would put it the BGS's
iPhone
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2018, 09:42:46 AM
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
Something should happen. I-476 is extremely over capacity during rush hours. & If Pa thinks the signals on the ramps will solve the problem they wont. They are already failing now.
Within a year after that highway opened; it was already exceeding its then-projected 20-year traffic counts.
Namely the people that protested so fiercely against the project were the same ones using it, quickly clogging it up.
Also, no doubt bad traffic estimates were done just to appease everyone.
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2018, 09:42:46 AM
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
Something should happen. I-476 is extremely over capacity during rush hours. & If Pa thinks the signals on the ramps will solve the problem they wont. They are already failing now.
Within a year after that highway opened; it was already exceeding its then-projected 20-year traffic counts.
So maybe a bypass of 95 & 476 should be created. "Thru traffic & local traffic" as Delaware would put it the BGS's
A bypass of I-95 was created. It's called I-295. Also, see "NJ Turnpike".
I-476 took decades to complete. There's no land available to create a bypass of a bypass.
Face it, if they can't get the support to widen a highway by one lane, they're not building an entirely separate highway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 11:37:54 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2018, 09:42:46 AM
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
Something should happen. I-476 is extremely over capacity during rush hours. & If Pa thinks the signals on the ramps will solve the problem they wont. They are already failing now.
Within a year after that highway opened; it was already exceeding its then-projected 20-year traffic counts.
Namely the people that protested so fiercely against the project were the same ones using it, quickly clogging it up.
Also, no doubt bad traffic estimates were done just to appease everyone.
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2018, 09:42:46 AM
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
Something should happen. I-476 is extremely over capacity during rush hours. & If Pa thinks the signals on the ramps will solve the problem they wont. They are already failing now.
Within a year after that highway opened; it was already exceeding its then-projected 20-year traffic counts.
So maybe a bypass of 95 & 476 should be created. "Thru traffic & local traffic" as Delaware would put it the BGS's
A bypass of I-95 was created. It's called I-295. Also, see "NJ Turnpike".
I-476 took decades to complete. There's no land available to create a bypass of a bypass.
Face it, if they can't get the support to widen a highway by one lane, they're not building an entirely separate highway.
Making a bypass in NJ & thinking that the people in this area will cross over at The commodore or Delaware memorial is not good planning. Its great if you're going to NY or far up Pa & don't wanna get stuck in Delaware/Pa traffic. But the people in the Tri-state area should have a free flowing highway to get from work & home. That stretch of highway from the Delaware Line to 476 is the reason why economic success hasn't occurred in this area. Maybe its a plot to keep everyone in Philly or Delaware.
iPhone
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2018, 09:42:46 AM
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
PennDOT and the localities formulated a consent decree in 1985 for the completion of I-476, and that is where the highway design was downscaled from 6 lanes to 4 lanes between McDade Blvd. and PA-3 West Chester Pike.
A consent decree like this has been utilized in several other places as well, and while it is not legislation or law, it is a binding formal agreement and even after 30 years time passage the DOTs don't want to abandon the decree (which would be performed formally by resolutions of the state transportation board).
What is with these errors on the Wikipedia Interstate 476 page?
At its opening in the early 1970's, I-476 was a 4 mile long, 4-lane spur expressway connecting the Schuylkill Expressway with the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Plymouth Meeting. It significantly helped reduce congestion through King of Prussia and the Schuylkill Expressway as it provided a more direct link from the Main Line suburbs to the Northern suburbs and New Jersey.
I-476 was widened to 6 lanes between I-76 and I-276 in 1990-1992 in anticipation of the Northeast Extension construction.
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:44:58 AM
Making a bypass in NJ & thinking that the people in this area will cross over at The commodore or Delaware memorial is not good planning. Its great if you're going to NY or far up Pa & don't wanna get stuck in Delaware/Pa traffic. But the people in the Tri-state area should have a free flowing highway to get from work & home. That stretch of highway from the Delaware Line to 476 is the reason why economic success hasn't occurred in this area. Maybe its a plot to keep everyone in Philly or Delaware.
You're starting to ignore history here.
I-95 was supposed to go from Wilmington thru Philly and PA then thru NJ. I-295 was a bypass from Wilmington to Trenton, and would've met up with I-95 in NJ, which ultimately never got built.
Numerous other interstate highways were planned in and around Philly, most of which weren't built.
The Commodore Barry Bridge didn't open until about 10 years after I-295 was being constructed, so that had no influence in the planning at the time.
I-95 has nothing to do with the lack of economic success in the area. I-95 flows relatively well during the day.The Schuylkill Expressway is jammed up way longer during the day, yet that area is doing pretty well.
And 'Home' and 'Work' is subjective. They could build another highway, but if it's too far away for you, it's not going to help anyway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 11:37:54 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2018, 09:42:46 AM
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
Something should happen. I-476 is extremely over capacity during rush hours. & If Pa thinks the signals on the ramps will solve the problem they wont. They are already failing now.
Within a year after that highway opened; it was already exceeding its then-projected 20-year traffic counts.
Namely the people that protested so fiercely against the project were the same ones using it, quickly clogging it up.
One word describes that:
Hypocrites.
Also where were they when all the massive development was being planned/built along the primary feeder roads (Mac Dade Blvd., Baltimore Pike, West Chester Pike) to I-476 decades prior to it being completed & open to traffic?
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2018, 11:54:09 AMWhat is with these errors on the Wikipedia Interstate 476 page?
Somebody (the one who supplied the edited entry) obviously is very confused & doesn't have their facts straight.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 12:20:45 PM
Numerous other interstate highways were planned in and around Philly, most of which weren't built.
The main ones were built, only local connectors I-695 and I-895 were not built.
I-76, I-276, I-476, I-676, I-95, I-295.
Granted the I-76 Surekill Expressway is woefully outdated and should have been upgraded decades ago, but unlike the other large northeastern cities, Philadelphia got their mainline Interstates completed, plus Delaware and New Jersey built two superhighway bypasses of the city.
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2018, 09:42:46 AM
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
Something should happen. I-476 is extremely over capacity during rush hours. & If Pa thinks the signals on the ramps will solve the problem they wont. They are already failing now.
iPhone
Oh you haven't heard? They're talking about half-assing it by opening up the shoulders on the southern portion just like they're considering for the Schuylkill. I mean of you're going to go that far, in the Blue Route's case, just lay down the pavement for the 3rd lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2018, 01:57:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 12:20:45 PM
Numerous other interstate highways were planned in and around Philly, most of which weren't built.
The main ones were built, only local connectors I-695 and I-895 were not built.
I-76, I-276, I-476, I-676, I-95, I-295.
Do keep in mind that both I-476 & I-676 were not only the late-comers with regards to full completion; for a while, it seemed that neither of the two were to be completed.
Quote from: ekt8750 on September 13, 2018, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2018, 09:42:46 AM
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
Something should happen. I-476 is extremely over capacity during rush hours. & If Pa thinks the signals on the ramps will solve the problem they wont. They are already failing now.
iPhone
Oh you haven't heard? They're talking about half-assing it by opening up the shoulders on the southern portion just like they're considering for the Schuylkill. I mean of you're going to go that far, in the Blue Route's case, just lay down the pavement for the 3rd lanes.
Just drove thru I-476 to exit 13. I see why they will just use the shoulder. They will have to undo miles of the wall or inside barrier & both seems like a shitty job.
iPhone
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 02:33:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2018, 01:57:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 12:20:45 PM
Numerous other interstate highways were planned in and around Philly, most of which weren't built.
The main ones were built, only local connectors I-695 and I-895 were not built.
I-76, I-276, I-476, I-676, I-95, I-295.
Do keep in mind that both I-476 & I-676 were not only the late-comers with regards to full completion; for a while, it seemed that neither of the two were to be completed.
I would assume that is because these highways had to be literally cut through rocks. & to think that expansion in the future was not necessary then. This is the reason why all our roads & infrastructure is failing now.
iPhone
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 02:33:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2018, 01:57:34 PM
The main ones were built, only local connectors I-695 and I-895 were not built.
I-76, I-276, I-476, I-676, I-95, I-295.
Do keep in mind that both I-476 & I-676 were not only the late-comers with regards to full completion; for a while, it seemed that neither of the two were to be completed.
True, but (was it) Governor Richard Thornburg (1979-1987) that got the 5 threatened Interstate segments built?
I-476, I-676, I-279 Parkway North, I-78 A-B-E bypass, and last mile of I-79.
Quote from: ekt8750 on September 13, 2018, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on September 13, 2018, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2018, 09:42:46 AM
PennDOT clearly designed the southern half of the Blue Route for a future widening into the median, though I don't think there have been any serious talks to actually do it yet.
Something should happen. I-476 is extremely over capacity during rush hours. & If Pa thinks the signals on the ramps will solve the problem they wont. They are already failing now.
iPhone
Oh you haven't heard? They're talking about half-assing it by opening up the shoulders on the southern portion just like they're considering for the Schuylkill. I mean of you're going to go that far, in the Blue Route's case, just lay down the pavement for the 3rd lanes.
"Laying down pavement" is like saying "I'll paint the new wall". You still need framing, electrical working, piping, drywall, spackle, etc before you ever get to the final surface to paint.
What appears to be a simple lane addition is never that simple because of all the work that is needed to be done underneath the surface that you drive one. It's also why it normally takes a few years to construct a new lane, especially when it's done next to a live traffic lane.
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2018, 01:57:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 12:20:45 PM
Numerous other interstate highways were planned in and around Philly, most of which weren't built.
The main ones were built, only local connectors I-695 and I-895 were not built.
I-76, I-276, I-476, I-676, I-95, I-295.
That's only Interstate Highways that officially got on the books. Read up on The Piedmont Expressway, which would've followed roughly the US 202 corridor and served as an additional bypass.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 03:11:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2018, 01:57:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 12:20:45 PM
Numerous other interstate highways were planned in and around Philly, most of which weren't built.
The main ones were built, only local connectors I-695 and I-895 were not built.
I-76, I-276, I-476, I-676, I-95, I-295.
That's only Interstate Highways that officially got on the books. Read up on The Piedmont Expressway, which would've followed roughly the US 202 corridor and served as an additional bypass.
I am aware of the US-202 Expressway, planned to connect the Betzwood Bridge to the US-202 Delaware River bridge at New Hope, PA. Not planned to be part of the Interstate System.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/44b8b0fde82f48f44cf61bcbb50284e0.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/9e76845cb0a7bbe2ba408111bb8b7897.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/16fa59d0d528aa5712c0bad345192e85.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/a0f6a115984cbf9092dfdd5c584a1a9a.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/4490bd45c0cf8fbc727648497a70487f.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/768431d7738306d11912551f9ede9c8d.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/8390688e012b7a3564b2ade1d33636fe.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/96baa229072509cefd5bfa7becf10cea.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/920dc5750410f07511eea7d599ab2d03.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/8485a69ef6330bd60ecff03fdb921a28.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/bc86114d633fd5441935d444564492e0.jpg)
Could you imagine if 476 was built like how it was supposed to. Then we would have a free flowing highway. But that curve on the 2nd to last pic would have caused accidents & many people would have accidentally merged onto the penna turnpike.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on October 13, 2018, 11:13:13 PM
Could you imagine if 476 was built like how it was supposed to. Then we would have a free flowing highway. But that curve on the 2nd to last pic would have caused accidents & many people would have accidentally merged onto the penna turnpike.
I saw this study report when I lived in the area in the 1970s. Yes those interchanges would have handled traffic much better, and the mainline would have been 6 lanes thruout.
That 2nd to last plate was PennDOT's design to connect I-476 to the Plymouth Meeting interchange with the Turnpike, if they could not come to an agreement with the Turnpike Commission to build the direct interchange with the Turnpike mainline. I thought it was a horrible design when I first saw it. At least that interchange did get built to a very ample design.
Quote from: Beltway on October 13, 2018, 11:57:58 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 13, 2018, 11:13:13 PM
Could you imagine if 476 was built like how it was supposed to. Then we would have a free flowing highway. But that curve on the 2nd to last pic would have caused accidents & many people would have accidentally merged onto the penna turnpike.
I saw this study report when I lived in the area in the 1970s. Yes those interchanges would have handled traffic much better, and the mainline would have been 6 lanes thruout.
That 2nd to last plate was PennDOT's design to connect I-476 to the Plymouth Meeting interchange with the Turnpike, if they could not come to an agreement with the Turnpike Commission to build the direct interchange with the Turnpike mainline. I thought it was a horrible design when I first saw it. At least that interchange did get built to a very ample design.
This is very intriguing. How can great plans like this. Turn to what we have now. (Nimbys)? I swear people treat highways like they are local roads. The whole point of a highway is to connect places. & to be able to skip thru lights, people & traffic that you dont have to go through. America needs to get minor & major roads together.
iPhone
Takeaway thoughts at each interchange:
Overall - They really had a thing for free flowing ramp terminals.
MacDade: A bit ambitious at the time but I can see it from MacDade's perspective, especially if it stayed signed as US 13 Bypass. It's pretty obvious why I-476 is now east of Crum Creek - river relocations fell out of vogue by about 1980.
Baltimore: Overkill. You have 1 and MacDade as free-flowing, this can be the diamond that it actually became.
1: I weep for the grade separations that could have been instead of a signalized volleyball. I love that the last two movements use PA 320 - really everything about this interchange complex should have been built, if I could pick one concept to bring forward.
3: Overkill again. Current interchange makes more sense. I would love to see the plates for the Lansdowne Expressway!
30: Never has there been a more wretched hive of overkill.
KOP connector: I dig. Would this have tied into the Schuylkill or paralleled it? Either way, a lot better than the extra length and traffic you have to fight to go from 76 east to 95 south via 476 now.
76: Reasonable. The current interchange seems fine also, so I'm not sure what was weighed and changed here.
PA Tpk. (options 1 and 2): So, somewhat like PA 9's north end, eh? Imagine if they couldn't even get a connection straight into PA 9, let alone the rest of the ramps at I-276? Then I totally agree with the massive accident rate that would have resulted. On the other hand, they were relying on this as a permanent connection! (It is required for the Germantown Pike movements to and from 476.) So why would the Tpk. direct interchange need EB-SB and NB-WB ramps?
Finishing thought - I'm sure some of these would have gotten revised even if I-476 were built along this alignment. This was the Cadillac design when all they needed was a Buick - and all they got was a broken down Chevy.
Quote from: Alps on October 14, 2018, 03:42:43 PM
Takeaway thoughts at each interchange:
[...]
30: Never has there been a more wretched hive of overkill.
76: Reasonable. The current interchange seems fine also, so I'm not sure what was weighed and changed here.
PA Tpk. (options 1 and 2): So, somewhat like PA 9's north end, eh?
I lived a couple miles from the proposed US-30 interchange. Underpowered as built. I don't think the original would have been overdesigned. Plus it was designed to connect to a Wayne Bypass of US-30.
I-76 -- they made the WB 76 to SB 476 ramp semi-directional. They relocated Matson Ford Road and provided full local movements with both highways.
Turnpike -- they did show tentative full connections, but they were only tentative, as the as-built layout is considerably different. Shows that no agreement had taken place yet when that was drawn, and that they needed to try to accomodate both a temporary connection and a permanent full connection.
Quote from: Alps on October 14, 2018, 03:42:43 PM
KOP connector: I dig. Would this have tied into the Schuylkill or paralleled it? Either way, a lot better than the extra length and traffic you have to fight to go from 76 east to 95 south via 476 now.
That's the Radnor Spur, which would've fed directly into the US 422 expressway and presumably would've been an extension of that route.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 14, 2018, 04:57:18 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 14, 2018, 03:42:43 PM
KOP connector: I dig. Would this have tied into the Schuylkill or paralleled it? Either way, a lot better than the extra length and traffic you have to fight to go from 76 east to 95 south via 476 now.
That's the Radnor Spur, which would've fed directly into the US 422 expressway and presumably would've been an extension of that route.
I searched around on the Internet but cannot find a map that shows the whole spur. Can't find a map of the US-30 Wayne Bypass that I mentioned earlier, either.
Anyone know of any? It would be helpful for other people to see a picture of what was proposed.
Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2018, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 14, 2018, 04:57:18 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 14, 2018, 03:42:43 PM
KOP connector: I dig. Would this have tied into the Schuylkill or paralleled it? Either way, a lot better than the extra length and traffic you have to fight to go from 76 east to 95 south via 476 now.
That's the Radnor Spur, which would've fed directly into the US 422 expressway and presumably would've been an extension of that route.
I searched around on the Internet but cannot find a map that shows the whole spur. Can't find a map of the US-30 Wayne Bypass that I mentioned earlier, either.
Anyone know of any? It would be helpful for other people to see a picture of what was proposed.
Roadsguy is correct...I once had an old Alfred B Patton map that showed the proposed Radnor Spur, connecting directly with US 422 at US 202. But I've never seen anything with a Wayne Bypass.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 14, 2018, 10:03:47 PM
Roadsguy is correct...I once had an old Alfred B Patton map that showed the proposed Radnor Spur, connecting directly with US 422 at US 202. But I've never seen anything with a Wayne Bypass.
Follows the "Radnor Trail", you can follow it west to near Devon. Back then it was a recently abandoned P&W Railroad spur from the line at Radnor.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0359393,-75.3679205,692m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2018, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 14, 2018, 04:57:18 PM
I searched around on the Internet but cannot find a map that shows the whole spur. Can't find a map of the US-30 Wayne Bypass that I mentioned earlier, either.
Anyone know of any? It would be helpful for other people to see a picture of what was proposed.
I've never seen any maps of a "Wayne Bypass." For those of you unaware of the geography & history of the Main Line, the "Wayne Bypass" would have used the old right-of-way of the Philadelphia & Western electric RR from Villanova to Stratford. The right-of-way in question parallels Conestoga Rd, in Radnor Twp, for the most part, and is today used as the Radnor Multipurpose Trail (http://www.radnor.com/radnortrail)
The first time I heard of the "Wayne Bypass," was by you, Scott, back in the MTR days, based on your employment at PennDOT in the 70s. Though, from what I had seen of the old P&W (My grandparents house was 60 yds away from the P&W, along Church Rd), I don't know if it was wide enough for 2 lanes of traffic. Knowing how much those along the P&W right-of-way protested turning the old railline into a bike trail, I don't believe these folks would have willingly give up land, or easements, for what would have amounted to a "Super Two" expressway.
BTW,
Alex, several years back, had posted several scans of proposed interchanges along the Blue Route, that were shown on Franklin Maps, or Alfred B Patton Maps (as jemacedo9 already referenced in this thread) from the 70s/early 80s.
They might be listed in the AAroads blog, or in another thread on this board.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 14, 2018, 10:52:49 PM
BTW,
Alex, several years back, had posted several scans of proposed interchanges along the Blue Route, that were shown on Franklin Maps, or Alfred B Patton Maps (as jemacedo9 already referenced in this thread) from the 70s/early 80s.
They might be listed in the AAroads blog, or in another thread on this board.
You can search up the thread.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on October 14, 2018, 10:53:26 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 14, 2018, 10:52:49 PM
BTW,
Alex, several years back, had posted several scans of proposed interchanges along the Blue Route, that were shown on Franklin Maps, or Alfred B Patton Maps (as jemacedo9 already referenced in this thread) from the 70s/early 80s.
They might be listed in the AAroads blog, or in another thread on this board.
You can search up the thread.
iPhone
Found the thread I was speaking of...
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7494
The Wayne Bypass was planned as a 4-lane highway, obviously that would have entailed wider right-of-way than that of the P&W Railroad. Following a former railroad at least would have followed a transportation corridor thereby not having the same impacts as thru virgin territory. It was meant to provide traffic relief to US-30 Lancaster Avenue. As was said there was a lot of local opposition that led to it being canceled.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 14, 2018, 10:59:11 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 14, 2018, 10:53:26 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 14, 2018, 10:52:49 PM
BTW,
Alex, several years back, had posted several scans of proposed interchanges along the Blue Route, that were shown on Franklin Maps, or Alfred B Patton Maps (as jemacedo9 already referenced in this thread) from the 70s/early 80s.
They might be listed in the AAroads blog, or in another thread on this board.
You can search up the thread.
iPhone
Found the thread I was speaking of...
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7494
Still more iterations of interchanges on that one.
Quote from: Alps on October 15, 2018, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 14, 2018, 10:59:11 PM
Found the thread I was speaking of...
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7494
Still more iterations of interchanges on that one.
Looks like a Delaware County map from about 1977, per the stage of completion of I-95 where it ends just west of the airport. I have this map somewhere in my map collections. I believe this map was accurate for that date.
I-476 interchanges on the segment from PA-3 to Baltimore Pike were downscaled in the early 1980s due to the consent decree that provided compromises to get I-476 completed. That included only 4 mainline lanes south of PA-3 West Chester Pike.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
You can see a full cloverleaf interchange in place of the diamond that currently exists between I-476 and Baltimore Pike
Full cloverleaf interchange appropriate given that Baltimore Pike was and is a 4-lane arterial.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
The Volleyball at US 1 was planned as a partial interchange, with some movements, like US 30 to I-476 north handled by an interchange at PA 320 (which does not exist today).
3 pairs of movements at US-1 and the 4th was handled at the interchange at PA-320.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
Further north, the unbuilt tri-level interchange mentioned somewhere else on the forum
For the Lansdowne Expressway which would have connected to the I-695 Cobbs Creek Expressway.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
A few more ramps were envisioned to join Interstate 476 with U.S. 30 than what was actually built.
The more ample design that I mentioned earlier.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
A huge interchange complex was proposed along Interstate 95 for Philadelphia International Airport and the unconstructed Cobbs Creek Expressway (Interstate 695). Note also the new alignment for PA-291, a number of platted streets that were never built and that I-95 defaulted onto PA-291 to the west (until its completion in 1985).
That is the old alignment of PA-291 Industrial Highway before being relocated thru the I-95 project and northern expansion of the airport property. The old Airport Circle is visible on the edge of the map, it connected PA-291 with Island Avenue. The dashed road north of I-95 is Relocated Bartram Avenue. I'm pretty sure that street grid south of there was very old housing that was condemned for the I-95 and airport expansion projects.
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2018, 07:08:36 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 15, 2018, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 14, 2018, 10:59:11 PM
Found the thread I was speaking of...
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7494
Still more iterations of interchanges on that one.
Looks like a Delaware County map from about 1977, per the stage of completion of I-95 where it ends just west of the airport. I have this map somewhere in my map collections. I believe this map was accurate for that date.
I-476 interchanges on the segment from PA-3 to Baltimore Pike were downscaled in the early 1980s due to the consent decree that provided compromises to get I-476 completed. That included only 4 mainline lanes south of PA-3 West Chester Pike.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
You can see a full cloverleaf interchange in place of the diamond that currently exists between I-476 and Baltimore Pike
Full cloverleaf interchange appropriate given that Baltimore Pike was and is a 4-lane arterial.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
The Volleyball at US 1 was planned as a partial interchange, with some movements, like US 30 to I-476 north handled by an interchange at PA 320 (which does not exist today).
3 pairs of movements at US-1 and the 4th was handled at the interchange at PA-320.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
Further north, the unbuilt tri-level interchange mentioned somewhere else on the forum
For the Lansdowne Expressway which would have connected to the I-695 Cobbs Creek Expressway.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
A few more ramps were envisioned to join Interstate 476 with U.S. 30 than what was actually built.
The more ample design that I mentioned earlier.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
A huge interchange complex was proposed along Interstate 95 for Philadelphia International Airport and the unconstructed Cobbs Creek Expressway (Interstate 695). Note also the new alignment for PA-291, a number of platted streets that were never built and that I-95 defaulted onto PA-291 to the west (until its completion in 1985).
That is the old alignment of PA-291 Industrial Highway before being relocated thru the I-95 project and northern expansion of the airport property. The old Airport Circle is visible on the edge of the map, it connected PA-291 with Island Avenue. The dashed road north of I-95 is Relocated Bartram Avenue. I'm pretty sure that street grid south of there was very old housing that was condemned for the I-95 and airport expansion projects.
Could you imagine if they built all those new streets by the airport. Was that gonna be more houses or more skyscrapers?
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on October 15, 2018, 11:49:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2018, 07:08:36 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 15, 2018, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 14, 2018, 10:59:11 PM
Found the thread I was speaking of...
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7494
Still more iterations of interchanges on that one.
Looks like a Delaware County map from about 1977, per the stage of completion of I-95 where it ends just west of the airport. I have this map somewhere in my map collections. I believe this map was accurate for that date.
I-476 interchanges on the segment from PA-3 to Baltimore Pike were downscaled in the early 1980s due to the consent decree that provided compromises to get I-476 completed. That included only 4 mainline lanes south of PA-3 West Chester Pike.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
You can see a full cloverleaf interchange in place of the diamond that currently exists between I-476 and Baltimore Pike
Full cloverleaf interchange appropriate given that Baltimore Pike was and is a 4-lane arterial.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
The Volleyball at US 1 was planned as a partial interchange, with some movements, like US 30 to I-476 north handled by an interchange at PA 320 (which does not exist today).
3 pairs of movements at US-1 and the 4th was handled at the interchange at PA-320.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
Further north, the unbuilt tri-level interchange mentioned somewhere else on the forum
For the Lansdowne Expressway which would have connected to the I-695 Cobbs Creek Expressway.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
A few more ramps were envisioned to join Interstate 476 with U.S. 30 than what was actually built.
The more ample design that I mentioned earlier.
Quote from: Alex on August 16, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
A huge interchange complex was proposed along Interstate 95 for Philadelphia International Airport and the unconstructed Cobbs Creek Expressway (Interstate 695). Note also the new alignment for PA-291, a number of platted streets that were never built and that I-95 defaulted onto PA-291 to the west (until its completion in 1985).
That is the old alignment of PA-291 Industrial Highway before being relocated thru the I-95 project and northern expansion of the airport property. The old Airport Circle is visible on the edge of the map, it connected PA-291 with Island Avenue. The dashed road north of I-95 is Relocated Bartram Avenue. I'm pretty sure that street grid south of there was very old housing that was condemned for the I-95 and airport expansion projects.
Could you imagine if they built all those new streets by the airport. Was that gonna be more houses or more skyscrapers?
iPhone
Housing or low-level commercial/industrial. Several stories at the most. FAA restrictions wouldn't permit skyscrapers.
Quote from: Tonytone on October 15, 2018, 11:49:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2018, 07:08:36 AM
I'm pretty sure that street grid south of there was very old housing that was condemned for the I-95 and airport expansion projects.
Could you imagine if they built all those new streets by the airport. Was that gonna be more houses or more skyscrapers?
My recollection is fuzzy but I think those were pre-existing streets with very old housing that was either still there or had been demolished due to blight. The neighborhood had a name but I can't recall it.
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2018, 02:15:37 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 15, 2018, 11:49:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2018, 07:08:36 AM
I'm pretty sure that street grid south of there was very old housing that was condemned for the I-95 and airport expansion projects.
Could you imagine if they built all those new streets by the airport. Was that gonna be more houses or more skyscrapers?
My recollection is fuzzy but I think those were pre-existing streets with very old housing that was either still there or had been demolished due to blight. The neighborhood had a name but I can't recall it.
So I assume that South Philly was actually bigger then what it is now. Thats a big amount of streets & plots.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on October 15, 2018, 02:18:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2018, 02:15:37 PM
My recollection is fuzzy but I think those were pre-existing streets with very old housing that was either still there or had been demolished due to blight. The neighborhood had a name but I can't recall it.
So I assume that South Philly was actually bigger then what it is now. Thats a big amount of streets & plots.
Not part of South Philadelphia or West Philadelphia. Southwest Philadelphia.
I think the neighborhood in question was called Eastwick.
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2018, 02:27:32 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 15, 2018, 02:18:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2018, 02:15:37 PM
My recollection is fuzzy but I think those were pre-existing streets with very old housing that was either still there or had been demolished due to blight. The neighborhood had a name but I can't recall it.
So I assume that South Philly was actually bigger then what it is now. Thats a big amount of streets & plots.
Not part of South Philadelphia or West Philadelphia. Southwest Philadelphia.
I think the neighborhood in question was called Eastwick.
looking at Historical Aerials The neighborhood is kinda still there but went all the way to the airport, to bad they couldn't turn that area into something else, also on the map I notice that there was a roundabout near the Northeast area of the airport. They destroyed a big part of Philly just for the roads and Airport.
Quote from: Tonytone on October 15, 2018, 03:05:11 PMlooking at Historical Aerials The neighborhood is kinda still there but went all the way to the airport, to bad they couldn't turn that area into something else, also on the map I notice that there was a roundabout near the Northeast area of the airport. They destroyed a big part of Philly just for the roads and Airport.
If the roads & airport weren't there; what would you put in its place... and equally important, how would one get over there as well as goods & services be transported & delivered?
Another thing to keep in mind that the soil conditions in the airport area aren't exactly suitable for Center City-like development in terms of density. One now-retired engineer at where I work at phrased it best,
"If it weren't for the swampy-like soil conditions at the airport; there would've been skyscrapers there instead."
Agreed. As far as I could tell from the old maps the neighborhood was always north of the airport. It looks like the airport was put on undeveloped swamp land. The part of Eastwick that was taken was eventually used primarily for I-95. Although before I-95 was built, some of the airport parking was encroaching on the neighborhood on the 70s. But before that, the part of the neighborhood in question looks to have been wiped out in the 60's due to 'urban redevelopment'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastwick,_Philadelphia
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 03:21:29 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that the soil conditions in the airport area aren't exactly suitable for Center City-like development in terms of density. One now-retired engineer at where I work at phrased it best, "If it weren't for the swampy-like soil conditions at the airport; there would've been skyscrapers there instead."
In college, I worked briefly at the front desk of a Courtyard, the owner of which also owned the large Renaissance hotel that's visible from I-95 near the airport. The general manager of that property came to our hotel for about a week to help us open (it was a brand new Courtyard), and we talked about the fact that the Renaissance is perpetually sinking–a few inches a year, if I recall correctly. And he said they routinely hire crews to inject concrete under the building and jack it back up, but it's an essentially endless cycle. It keeps sinking slowly into the soft soil.
From what I've been told by one of the now-gone old-timers at where I work: one early proposal for I-95 in that area had it running along the southern edge of the airport... where Hog Island Rd. is today. Ramp access to/from the terminal buildings would've been interesting had that alignment came to fruition.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 15, 2018, 04:16:18 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 03:21:29 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that the soil conditions in the airport area aren't exactly suitable for Center City-like development in terms of density. One now-retired engineer at where I work at phrased it best, "If it weren't for the swampy-like soil conditions at the airport; there would've been skyscrapers there instead."
In college, I worked briefly at the front desk of a Courtyard, the owner of which also owned the large Renaissance hotel that's visible from I-95 near the airport. The general manager of that property came to our hotel for about a week to help us open (it was a brand new Courtyard), and we talked about the fact that the Renaissance is perpetually sinking–a few inches a year, if I recall correctly. And he said they routinely hire crews to inject concrete under the building and jack it back up, but it's an essentially endless cycle. It keeps sinking slowly into the soft soil.
I was just about to comment on that. I read that Washington D.C is on a swamp and if the pumps that keep the water out the city fail. The city will flood.
iPhone
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 04:57:13 PM
From what I've been told by one of the now-gone old-timers at where I work: one early proposal for I-95 in that area had it running along the southern edge of the airport... where Hog Island Rd. is today. Ramp access to/from the terminal buildings would've been interesting had that alignment came to fruition.
I bet the ramps would have followed something similar to the current I-95 to get between that proposal and 291.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 15, 2018, 04:16:18 PM
In college, I worked briefly at the front desk of a Courtyard, the owner of which also owned the large Renaissance hotel that's visible from I-95 near the airport. The general manager of that property came to our hotel for about a week to help us open (it was a brand new Courtyard), and we talked about the fact that the Renaissance is perpetually sinking–a few inches a year, if I recall correctly. And he said they routinely hire crews to inject concrete under the building and jack it back up, but it's an essentially endless cycle. It keeps sinking slowly into the soft soil.
Easy, just construct another entrance on the 2nd floor. Eventually you remodel, move the lobby upstairs and conference rooms down to the new basement.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 03:21:29 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that the soil conditions in the airport area aren't exactly suitable for Center City-like development in terms of density. One now-retired engineer at where I work at phrased it best, "If it weren't for the swampy-like soil conditions at the airport; there would've been skyscrapers there instead."
All they have to do is look at Mexico City. Most of that city is built on a lake bed and some old buildings have sunk dramatically as the buildings are heavier than water with absolutely no buoyancy at all.
If Mexico can put up with that so can Philly.
Quote from: TonytoneI read that Washington D.C is on a swamp and if the pumps that keep the water out the city fail. The city will flood.
Virtually all of DC is above sea level. Most of what was former swamp comprises most of the "Federal district" (where many Federal agencies are) along and south of the National Mall, most of Southwest DC (southwest of the US Capitol), and land along the Anacostia River. Most of DC is actually quite hilly and would be very unlikely to flood in the manner you suggest.
Quote from: froggie on October 15, 2018, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: TonytoneI read that Washington D.C is on a swamp and if the pumps that keep the water out the city fail. The city will flood.
Virtually all of DC is above sea level. Most of what was former swamp comprises most of the "Federal district" (where many Federal agencies are) along and south of the National Mall, most of Southwest DC (southwest of the US Capitol), and land along the Anacostia River. Most of DC is actually quite hilly and would be very unlikely to flood in the manner you suggest.
So when they say "drain the swamp," they quite literally mean, "go back 200 years and build DC"? :happy:
Looking on the Aerials map for 1958 Route 322 has been there for a very long time. I wonder why a bridge did not come sooner.
Quote from: froggie on October 15, 2018, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: TonytoneI read that Washington D.C is on a swamp and if the pumps that keep the water out the city fail. The city will flood.
Virtually all of DC is above sea level. Most of what was former swamp comprises most of the "Federal district" (where many Federal agencies are) along and south of the National Mall, most of Southwest DC (southwest of the US Capitol), and land along the Anacostia River. Most of DC is actually quite hilly and would be very unlikely to flood in the manner you suggest.
That is all true and much of the soil in the District is quite rocky with a lot of clay included. I know this from following the topic of the construction of the Metro subway tunnels back when they were built. Other than certain areas close to the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, very little of the District was ever a swamp.
Wow, I just have to say, this is the kind of discovery that I love about this site. Absolutely fascinating.
It's topics like the one from 2012 that was posted that made me want to join this place.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 15, 2018, 04:16:18 PMIn college, I worked briefly at the front desk of a Courtyard, the owner of which also owned the large Renaissance hotel that’s visible from I-95 near the airport. The general manager of that property came to our hotel for about a week to help us open (it was a brand new Courtyard), and we talked about the fact that the Renaissance is perpetually sinking—a few inches a year, if I recall correctly. And he said they routinely hire crews to inject concrete under the building and jack it back up, but it’s an essentially endless cycle. It keeps sinking slowly into the soft soil.
Reminds me of the line in the 1974 movie
Earthquake that Charlton Heston (who played a structural engineer) uttered while driving through the city after the quake happened,
"We never should've built these 40-story monstrosities... at least not here." I know the Renaissance isn't 40-stories high & the issue here's the soil conditions, not an earthquake but the premise/principle can still apply.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2018, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 03:21:29 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that the soil conditions in the airport area aren't exactly suitable for Center City-like development in terms of density. One now-retired engineer at where I work at phrased it best, "If it weren't for the swampy-like soil conditions at the airport; there would've been skyscrapers there instead."
All they have to do is look at Mexico City. Most of that city is built on a lake bed and some old buildings have sunk dramatically as the buildings are heavier than water with absolutely no buoyancy at all.
If Mexico can put up with that so can Philly.
Do you
really want skyscrapers in the
immediate vicinity of a major airport? The flight paths & the related-FAA criteria automatically restricts where one could build a high-rise; soil conditions or no soil conditions.
And if skyscrapers were built in that area; where would the airport be located?
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 16, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 15, 2018, 04:16:18 PMIn college, I worked briefly at the front desk of a Courtyard, the owner of which also owned the large Renaissance hotel that’s visible from I-95 near the airport. The general manager of that property came to our hotel for about a week to help us open (it was a brand new Courtyard), and we talked about the fact that the Renaissance is perpetually sinking—a few inches a year, if I recall correctly. And he said they routinely hire crews to inject concrete under the building and jack it back up, but it’s an essentially endless cycle. It keeps sinking slowly into the soft soil.
Reminds me of the line in the 1974 movie Earthquake that Charlton Heston (who played a structural engineer) uttered while driving through the city after the quake happened, "We never should've built these 40-story monstrosities... at least not here." I know the Renaissance isn't 40-stories high & the issue here's the soil conditions, not an earthquake but the premise/principle can still apply.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2018, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 03:21:29 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that the soil conditions in the airport area aren't exactly suitable for Center City-like development in terms of density. One now-retired engineer at where I work at phrased it best, "If it weren't for the swampy-like soil conditions at the airport; there would've been skyscrapers there instead."
All they have to do is look at Mexico City. Most of that city is built on a lake bed and some old buildings have sunk dramatically as the buildings are heavier than water with absolutely no buoyancy at all.
If Mexico can put up with that so can Philly.
Do you really want skyscrapers in the immediate vicinity of a major airport? The flight paths & the related-FAA criteria automatically restricts where one could build a high-rise; soil conditions or no soil conditions.
And if skyscrapers were built in that area; where would the airport be located?
Here:
https://goo.gl/maps/JfjsQwfY1g12
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 16, 2018, 09:53:43 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 16, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 15, 2018, 04:16:18 PMIn college, I worked briefly at the front desk of a Courtyard, the owner of which also owned the large Renaissance hotel that’s visible from I-95 near the airport. The general manager of that property came to our hotel for about a week to help us open (it was a brand new Courtyard), and we talked about the fact that the Renaissance is perpetually sinking—a few inches a year, if I recall correctly. And he said they routinely hire crews to inject concrete under the building and jack it back up, but it’s an essentially endless cycle. It keeps sinking slowly into the soft soil.
Reminds me of the line in the 1974 movie Earthquake that Charlton Heston (who played a structural engineer) uttered while driving through the city after the quake happened, "We never should've built these 40-story monstrosities... at least not here." I know the Renaissance isn't 40-stories high & the issue here's the soil conditions, not an earthquake but the premise/principle can still apply.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2018, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 03:21:29 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that the soil conditions in the airport area aren't exactly suitable for Center City-like development in terms of density. One now-retired engineer at where I work at phrased it best, "If it weren't for the swampy-like soil conditions at the airport; there would've been skyscrapers there instead."
All they have to do is look at Mexico City. Most of that city is built on a lake bed and some old buildings have sunk dramatically as the buildings are heavier than water with absolutely no buoyancy at all.
If Mexico can put up with that so can Philly.
Do you really want skyscrapers in the immediate vicinity of a major airport? The flight paths & the related-FAA criteria automatically restricts where one could build a high-rise; soil conditions or no soil conditions.
And if skyscrapers were built in that area; where would the airport be located?
Here:
https://goo.gl/maps/JfjsQwfY1g12
Hold on. There are two big airports in philly right next to each other? I swear ive never heard of the north east airport.
iPhone
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2018, 08:54:27 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 15, 2018, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: TonytoneI read that Washington D.C is on a swamp and if the pumps that keep the water out the city fail. The city will flood.
Virtually all of DC is above sea level. Most of what was former swamp comprises most of the "Federal district" (where many Federal agencies are) along and south of the National Mall, most of Southwest DC (southwest of the US Capitol), and land along the Anacostia River. Most of DC is actually quite hilly and would be very unlikely to flood in the manner you suggest.
That is all true and much of the soil in the District is quite rocky with a lot of clay included. I know this from following the topic of the construction of the Metro subway tunnels back when they were built. Other than certain areas close to the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, very little of the District was ever a swamp.
I guess you're right. I had seen the D.C flooding scenario off of the old tvshow "Life after humans" that used to come in discovery channel. & show what places would be like in 100-1,000,000,000 without human presence.
iPhone
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 16, 2018, 09:53:43 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 16, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 15, 2018, 04:16:18 PMIn college, I worked briefly at the front desk of a Courtyard, the owner of which also owned the large Renaissance hotel that’s visible from I-95 near the airport. The general manager of that property came to our hotel for about a week to help us open (it was a brand new Courtyard), and we talked about the fact that the Renaissance is perpetually sinking—a few inches a year, if I recall correctly. And he said they routinely hire crews to inject concrete under the building and jack it back up, but it’s an essentially endless cycle. It keeps sinking slowly into the soft soil.
Reminds me of the line in the 1974 movie Earthquake that Charlton Heston (who played a structural engineer) uttered while driving through the city after the quake happened, "We never should've built these 40-story monstrosities... at least not here." I know the Renaissance isn't 40-stories high & the issue here's the soil conditions, not an earthquake but the premise/principle can still apply.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2018, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 03:21:29 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that the soil conditions in the airport area aren't exactly suitable for Center City-like development in terms of density. One now-retired engineer at where I work at phrased it best, "If it weren't for the swampy-like soil conditions at the airport; there would've been skyscrapers there instead."
All they have to do is look at Mexico City. Most of that city is built on a lake bed and some old buildings have sunk dramatically as the buildings are heavier than water with absolutely no buoyancy at all.
If Mexico can put up with that so can Philly.
Do you really want skyscrapers in the immediate vicinity of a major airport? The flight paths & the related-FAA criteria automatically restricts where one could build a high-rise; soil conditions or no soil conditions.
And if skyscrapers were built in that area; where would the airport be located?
Here:
https://goo.gl/maps/JfjsQwfY1g12
Or here: https://goo.gl/maps/JPbQUMNms6s (Please, someone, get the reference and why it's referenced!)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181017/815652a88f6e9ce7737e5688491e59e9.jpg)
Sorry for the blurry pic this is the part of 95 thru Chester were they are repaving. Looking like they might be repaving the middlelane to the Delaware stateline. That middle lane is so riddled with potholes. About time they are fixing it.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on October 16, 2018, 10:49:27 PM
There are two big airports in philly right next to each other? I swear ive never heard of the north east airport.
What, about 20 miles apart? Northeast Philadelphia Airport is part of the Philadelphia Airport System along with Philadelphia International Airport and is the general aviation reliever airport for Philadelphia International. Not sure if they ever have had commercial airline service there, as in Part 121 scheduled air carriers (i.e. regional and major airlines).
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2018, 11:17:47 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 16, 2018, 10:49:27 PM
There are two big airports in philly right next to each other? I swear ive never heard of the north east airport.
What, about 20 miles apart? Northeast Philadelphia Airport is part of the Philadelphia Airport System along with Philadelphia International Airport and is the general aviation reliever airport for Philadelphia International. Not sure if they ever have had commercial airline service there, as in Part 121 scheduled air carriers (i.e. regional and major airlines).
Oh ok. That makes sense. I figured it had to be connected along with PHL. & 20 miles isn't that far anymore. Lol
iPhone
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 11:03:59 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 16, 2018, 09:53:43 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 16, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 15, 2018, 04:16:18 PMIn college, I worked briefly at the front desk of a Courtyard, the owner of which also owned the large Renaissance hotel that's visible from I-95 near the airport. The general manager of that property came to our hotel for about a week to help us open (it was a brand new Courtyard), and we talked about the fact that the Renaissance is perpetually sinking–a few inches a year, if I recall correctly. And he said they routinely hire crews to inject concrete under the building and jack it back up, but it's an essentially endless cycle. It keeps sinking slowly into the soft soil.
Reminds me of the line in the 1974 movie Earthquake that Charlton Heston (who played a structural engineer) uttered while driving through the city after the quake happened, "We never should've built these 40-story monstrosities... at least not here." I know the Renaissance isn't 40-stories high & the issue here's the soil conditions, not an earthquake but the premise/principle can still apply.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2018, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 03:21:29 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that the soil conditions in the airport area aren't exactly suitable for Center City-like development in terms of density. One now-retired engineer at where I work at phrased it best, "If it weren't for the swampy-like soil conditions at the airport; there would've been skyscrapers there instead."
All they have to do is look at Mexico City. Most of that city is built on a lake bed and some old buildings have sunk dramatically as the buildings are heavier than water with absolutely no buoyancy at all.
If Mexico can put up with that so can Philly.
Do you really want skyscrapers in the immediate vicinity of a major airport? The flight paths & the related-FAA criteria automatically restricts where one could build a high-rise; soil conditions or no soil conditions.
And if skyscrapers were built in that area; where would the airport be located?
Here:
https://goo.gl/maps/JfjsQwfY1g12
Or here: https://goo.gl/maps/JPbQUMNms6s (Please, someone, get the reference and why it's referenced!)
At least one of us got it.
Quote from: qguy on October 17, 2018, 06:26:10 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 11:03:59 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 16, 2018, 09:53:43 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 16, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 15, 2018, 04:16:18 PMIn college, I worked briefly at the front desk of a Courtyard, the owner of which also owned the large Renaissance hotel that's visible from I-95 near the airport. The general manager of that property came to our hotel for about a week to help us open (it was a brand new Courtyard), and we talked about the fact that the Renaissance is perpetually sinking–a few inches a year, if I recall correctly. And he said they routinely hire crews to inject concrete under the building and jack it back up, but it's an essentially endless cycle. It keeps sinking slowly into the soft soil.
Reminds me of the line in the 1974 movie Earthquake that Charlton Heston (who played a structural engineer) uttered while driving through the city after the quake happened, "We never should've built these 40-story monstrosities... at least not here." I know the Renaissance isn't 40-stories high & the issue here's the soil conditions, not an earthquake but the premise/principle can still apply.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2018, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 03:21:29 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that the soil conditions in the airport area aren't exactly suitable for Center City-like development in terms of density. One now-retired engineer at where I work at phrased it best, "If it weren't for the swampy-like soil conditions at the airport; there would've been skyscrapers there instead."
All they have to do is look at Mexico City. Most of that city is built on a lake bed and some old buildings have sunk dramatically as the buildings are heavier than water with absolutely no buoyancy at all.
If Mexico can put up with that so can Philly.
Do you really want skyscrapers in the immediate vicinity of a major airport? The flight paths & the related-FAA criteria automatically restricts where one could build a high-rise; soil conditions or no soil conditions.
And if skyscrapers were built in that area; where would the airport be located?
Here:
https://goo.gl/maps/JfjsQwfY1g12
Or here: https://goo.gl/maps/JPbQUMNms6s (Please, someone, get the reference and why it's referenced!)
At least one of us got it.
make that two.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 11:03:59 PMOr here: https://goo.gl/maps/JPbQUMNms6s (Please, someone, get the reference and why it's referenced!)
Know it well. My firm's branch office used to be located about a mile east of there. One of my co-workers have a vintage photo when (not going to give it away) such existed.
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2018, 11:17:47 PMWhat, about 20 miles apart? Northeast Philadelphia Airport is part of the Philadelphia Airport System along with Philadelphia International Airport and is the general aviation reliever airport for Philadelphia International. Not sure if they ever have had commercial airline service there, as in Part 121 scheduled air carriers (i.e. regional and major airlines).
Northeast Philadelphia Airport (PNE) hasn't had scheduled service since maybe the late 1980s when TWA used to fly Dash7 (DH-7) turboprops to JFK. While PNE's airfield is designed (by default) to handle FAA Group III aircraft (wingspan range 79'<118', tail-height range 30'<45', today's 737s/A320s fall in such category); it very rarely gets those. The only 737 type plane I've seen a PNE is the business variant (737-BBJ) of the 737-800.
While it's run by the same city agency (the Division of Aviation) as its larger PHL counterpart; no way is it considered to be a reliever airport for PHL... at least not for commercial flights.
BTW, Hot Rod Hootenanny & J&N (I'm assuming you posted such in jest because, you IMHO should know better) the land areas for those two sites are nowhere near as large as PHL's current boundaries. In most instances, the only NIMBY factor at PHL is Tinicum Township, Delaware County (the western portion of the airport property is situated in that township); and that at times is enough to stifle growth. In contrast, any attempt to expand PNE would trigger a much larger NIMBY opposition & building/land takings.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 09:07:58 AM
Northeast Philadelphia Airport (PNE) hasn't had scheduled service since maybe the late 1980s when TWA used to fly Dash7 (DH-7) turboprops to JFK. While PNE's airfield is designed to handle FAA Group III aircraft (737s/A320s); it very rarely gets those. The only 737 type plane I've seen a PNE is the business variant (737-BBJ) of the 737-800.
Per Wikipedia it got that design by default, as the 7,000 and 5,000 foot runways date back to 1960 which is before the 737 and other medium sized jet airliners (727, DC-9) were in service. A 707 or DC-8 could utilize a 7,000 foot runway in theory but was not really feasible for all-weather service. It certainly could handle medium sized jet airliners if the need arose, but would need expanded terminal facilities.
Northeast Philadelphia Airport started in the 1930s as the Northeast Airport, a grass field with no paved runways, one of three small airports in the area.
The United States Army Air Corps began construction of a 545 acres airbase in Northeast Philadelphia during World War II, but the project was never completed and the property was turned over to the city in 1944. After the city finished the work, Philadelphia Northeast Airport opened in June 1945. In 1948 the name was changed to North Philadelphia Airport.
The airport expanded in 1960 when Runway 6/24 was extended to its present length. Runway 10/28 was abandoned at this time due to construction on the western end of the runway. The name was changed again in 1980, to the present Northeast Philadelphia Airport.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 11:03:59 PM
Or here: https://goo.gl/maps/JPbQUMNms6s (Please, someone, get the reference and why it's referenced!)
QuoteThe site was dedicated as the "Philadelphia Municipal Airport" by Charles Lindbergh in 1927, but it had no proper terminal building until 1940; airlines used the airfield (at 39.930°N 75.078°W) in nearby Camden, New Jersey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_International_Airport
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 09:29:00 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 09:07:58 AM
Northeast Philadelphia Airport (PNE) hasn't had scheduled service since maybe the late 1980s when TWA used to fly Dash7 (DH-7) turboprops to JFK. While PNE's airfield is designed (by default) to handle FAA Group III aircraft (wingspan range 79'<118', tail-height range 30'<45', today's 737s/A320s fall in such category); it very rarely gets those. The only 737 type plane I've seen a PNE is the business variant (737-BBJ) of the 737-800.
Per Wikipedia it got that design by default, as the 7,000 and 5,000 foot runways date back to 1960 which is before the 737 and other medium sized jet airliners (727, DC-9) were in service. A 707 or DC-8 could utilize a 7,000 foot runway in theory but was not really feasible for all-weather service. It certainly could handle medium sized jet airliners if the need arose, but would need expanded terminal facilities.
Correct on the terminal facilities issue. I have since modified my previous post (in green) to clarify matters regarding the FAA's design criteria & timeline.
While the current FAA Design Group aircraft came long after PNE was established (truth be told, a lot of airports including PHL were around before such as well); my earlier points regarding PNE
not being expanded to compliment PHL in terms of commercial service are still valid regardless of PNE's past history (in short, it's
not happening). BTW, the 707 & DC-8 fall under the current FAA Design Group IV aircraft (wingspan range 118'<171', tail height range 45'<60').
In contrast, neighboring Mercer-Trenton (TTN) Airport has commercial service (Frontier's A319/320/321s) and is planning for an expansion of its terminal & facilities. However, such has
not been without controversy from its surrounding residents; but that's another topic for another thread.
I didn't know that Trenton has commercial airline service. So between that and PHL the region is well covered, so I can see why PNE would not need to be expanded to such service.
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 10:41:24 AMI didn't know that Trenton has commercial airline service.
Service at TTN has largely been off-and-on. For a good part of the last 25-30 years; smaller, less-known carriers like Eastwind & Shuttle America (when it was still an independent carrier) had service at TTN. Frontier's been there for a few years. Allegiant was there as well for a while but withdrew almost a year ago.
FYI, TTN's website (http://www.mercercounty.org/departments/transportation-and-infrastructure/trenton-mercer-airport)
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 10:41:24 AMSo between that and PHL the region is well covered, so I can see why PNE would not need to be expanded to such service.
I don't if I'd go that far. There has been a tug-of-war or sorts for at least two decades regarding whether to expand PHL further or upgrade & utilize other surrounding airports to
relieve PHL. However, with the airline mergers that took place this past decade (including the most recent American/US Airways merger); I don't think we're going to see major airport expansions
unless all carriers chip in for some of its costs (PHL now has some vacant gates courtesy of the mergers).
Case & point: the plan to build an additional parallel runway at PHL (south of the current Runway 9R/27L) has been put on indefinite hold. OTOH, the eastern extension of R/W 27L opened about two months ago.
Quote from: odditude on October 17, 2018, 08:41:12 AM
Quote from: qguy on October 17, 2018, 06:26:10 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 11:03:59 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 16, 2018, 09:53:43 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 16, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 15, 2018, 04:16:18 PMIn college, I worked briefly at the front desk of a Courtyard, the owner of which also owned the large Renaissance hotel that's visible from I-95 near the airport. The general manager of that property came to our hotel for about a week to help us open (it was a brand new Courtyard), and we talked about the fact that the Renaissance is perpetually sinking–a few inches a year, if I recall correctly. And he said they routinely hire crews to inject concrete under the building and jack it back up, but it's an essentially endless cycle. It keeps sinking slowly into the soft soil.
Reminds me of the line in the 1974 movie Earthquake that Charlton Heston (who played a structural engineer) uttered while driving through the city after the quake happened, "We never should've built these 40-story monstrosities... at least not here." I know the Renaissance isn't 40-stories high & the issue here's the soil conditions, not an earthquake but the premise/principle can still apply.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2018, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 03:21:29 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that the soil conditions in the airport area aren't exactly suitable for Center City-like development in terms of density. One now-retired engineer at where I work at phrased it best, "If it weren't for the swampy-like soil conditions at the airport; there would've been skyscrapers there instead."
All they have to do is look at Mexico City. Most of that city is built on a lake bed and some old buildings have sunk dramatically as the buildings are heavier than water with absolutely no buoyancy at all.
If Mexico can put up with that so can Philly.
Do you really want skyscrapers in the immediate vicinity of a major airport? The flight paths & the related-FAA criteria automatically restricts where one could build a high-rise; soil conditions or no soil conditions.
And if skyscrapers were built in that area; where would the airport be located?
Here:
https://goo.gl/maps/JfjsQwfY1g12
Or here: https://goo.gl/maps/JPbQUMNms6s (Please, someone, get the reference and why it's referenced!)
At least one of us got it.
make that two.
Three actually.
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 17, 2018, 11:34:39 AM
Quote from: odditude on October 17, 2018, 08:41:12 AM
Quote from: qguy on October 17, 2018, 06:26:10 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 11:03:59 PM
Or here: https://goo.gl/maps/JPbQUMNms6s (Please, someone, get the reference and why it's referenced!)
At least one of us got it.
make that two.
Three actually.
Four, if one counts yours truly.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 10:41:24 AMI didn't know that Trenton has commercial airline service.
Service at TTN has largely been off-and-on. For a good part of the last 25-30 years; smaller, less-known carriers like Eastwind & Shuttle America (when it was still an independent carrier) had service at TTN. Frontier's been there for a few years. Allegiant was there as well for a while but withdrew almost a year ago.
FYI, TTN's website (http://www.mercercounty.org/departments/transportation-and-infrastructure/trenton-mercer-airport)
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 10:41:24 AMSo between that and PHL the region is well covered, so I can see why PNE would not need to be expanded to such service.
I don't if I'd go that far. There has been a tug-of-war or sorts for at least two decades regarding whether to expand PHL further or upgrade & utilize other surrounding airports to relieve PHL. However, with the airline mergers that took place this past decade (including the most recent American/US Airways merger); I don't think we're going to see major airport expansions unless all carriers chip in for some of its costs.
Case & point: the plan to build an additional parallel runway at PHL (south of the current Runway 9R/27L) has been put on indefinite hold. OTOH, the eastern extension of R/W 27L opened about two months ago.
Frontier has been there 6 years and seems to be doing a good business there.
Frontier also tried the New Castle Airport in Delaware but pulled out after a very short time. Part of the airport's marketing is that they're only "25 minutes from Philadelphia". I calculated that, and including that travel that has to be done going thru several traffic lights on US 13 before reaching I-295 or I-495, one needs to average 91 mph just to reach the southern boundary of Philly in 25 minutes. It's misleading advertising, and probably didn't help entice travelers going to or from Philly being they're driving by PHL anyway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 17, 2018, 11:43:57 AMFrontier also tried the New Castle Airport in Delaware but pulled out after a very short time.
The short-lived carrier, Skybus, also served New Castle County Airport (ILG) as well. Delta Connection carrier, Comair, also had service to its Atlanta (ATL) hub from both there & at TTN. However, Delta was charging three times as much as it charged for its fares out of PHL (completion w/then-AirTran helped keep Delta's PHL-ATL fares in check). As a result, it withdrew service from both airports in a very short time. Apparently, legacy carriers have failed to fully grasp the concept of
airport competition as much as it understands/deals with airline competition.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 11:37:25 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 17, 2018, 11:34:39 AM
Quote from: odditude on October 17, 2018, 08:41:12 AM
Quote from: qguy on October 17, 2018, 06:26:10 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 11:03:59 PM
Or here: https://goo.gl/maps/JPbQUMNms6s (Please, someone, get the reference and why it's referenced!)
At least one of us got it.
make that two.
Three actually.
Four, if one counts yours truly.
Is it somewhat similar to the reference of this geographic location as well? (plus or minus a shape or two)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.239951,-75.2407317,697m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.239951,-75.2407317,697m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Quote from: Chris19001 on October 17, 2018, 12:25:48 PM
Is it somewhat similar to the reference of this geographic location as well? (plus or minus a shape or two)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.239951,-75.2407317,697m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.239951,-75.2407317,697m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Yes (after looking through Historic Aerials to confirm).
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 01:09:10 PM
Quote from: Chris19001 on October 17, 2018, 12:25:48 PM
Is it somewhat similar to the reference of this geographic location as well? (plus or minus a shape or two)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.239951,-75.2407317,697m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.239951,-75.2407317,697m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Yes (after looking through Historic Aerials to confirm).
I assume these locations are other previous airport locations.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on October 17, 2018, 01:14:46 PMI assume these locations are other previous airport locations.
Correct, but none of them are the size of PHL... both then & especially now.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 11:25:38 AM
Case & point: the plan to build an additional parallel runway at PHL (south of the current Runway 9R/27L) has been put on indefinite hold. OTOH, the eastern extension of R/W 27L opened about two months ago.
I thought they already had two parallel runways for 9R/27L. Current aerial views seem to show that (?).
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 03:31:16 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 11:25:38 AM
Case & point: the plan to build an additional parallel runway at PHL (south of the current Runway 9R/27L) has been put on indefinite hold. OTOH, the eastern extension of R/W 27L opened about two months ago.
I thought they already had two parallel runways for 9R/27L. Current aerial views seem to show that (?).
They do; the additional new one I'm referring to would be the third. The existing two runways are situated too close together to do simultaneous take-offs.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 03:44:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 03:31:16 PM
I thought they already had two parallel runways for 9R/27L. Current aerial views seem to show that (?).
They do; the additional new one I'm referring to would be the third. The existing two runways are situated too close together to do simultaneous take-offs.
How are they going to do that without filling in part of the river? Aerial view makes it look like they did some of that when they built the second runway.
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 03:46:42 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 03:44:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 03:31:16 PM
I thought they already had two parallel runways for 9R/27L. Current aerial views seem to show that (?).
They do; the additional new one I'm referring to would be the third. The existing two runways are situated too close together to do simultaneous take-offs.
How are they going to do that without filling in part of the river? Aerial view makes it look like they did some of that when they built the second runway.
That was exactly the plan. See Pages 33 & 34 (https://www.phila.gov/investor/pdfs/phl%20investor%20conference%20presentation%20airport%20final.pdf) of this PowerPoint presentation.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 03:44:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 03:31:16 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 11:25:38 AM
Case & point: the plan to build an additional parallel runway at PHL (south of the current Runway 9R/27L) has been put on indefinite hold. OTOH, the eastern extension of R/W 27L opened about two months ago.
I thought they already had two parallel runways for 9R/27L. Current aerial views seem to show that (?).
They do; the additional new one I'm referring to would be the third. The existing two runways are situated too close together to do simultaneous take-offs.
Did they build the runways too close by accident? Or was it a surveying error?
iPhone
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 04:20:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 03:46:42 PM
How are they going to do that without filling in part of the river? Aerial view makes it look like they did some of that when they built the second runway.
That was exactly the plan. See Pages 33 & 34 (https://www.phila.gov/investor/pdfs/phl%20investor%20conference%20presentation%20airport%20final.pdf) of this PowerPoint presentation.
Looks fairly minimal, less than 10 acres, and not causing any narrowing of the narrowest part of the river.
Quote from: Tonytone on October 17, 2018, 04:21:21 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 03:44:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 03:31:16 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 11:25:38 AM
Case & point: the plan to build an additional parallel runway at PHL (south of the current Runway 9R/27L) has been put on indefinite hold. OTOH, the eastern extension of R/W 27L opened about two months ago.
I thought they already had two parallel runways for 9R/27L. Current aerial views seem to show that (?).
They do; the additional new one I'm referring to would be the third. The existing two runways are situated too close together to do simultaneous take-offs.
Did they build the runways too close by accident? Or was it a surveying error?
Lack of land.
Quote from: seicer on October 17, 2018, 04:31:28 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 17, 2018, 04:21:21 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 03:44:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 03:31:16 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 11:25:38 AM
Case & point: the plan to build an additional parallel runway at PHL (south of the current Runway 9R/27L) has been put on indefinite hold. OTOH, the eastern extension of R/W 27L opened about two months ago.
I thought they already had two parallel runways for 9R/27L. Current aerial views seem to show that (?).
They do; the additional new one I'm referring to would be the third. The existing two runways are situated too close together to do simultaneous take-offs.
Did they build the runways too close by accident? Or was it a surveying error?
Lack of land.
Well seems like that caused them to spend more money on relocating the Runways. But they are doing other upgrades so I guess its all good.
iPhone
Quote from: seicer on October 17, 2018, 04:31:28 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 17, 2018, 04:21:21 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 03:44:10 PM
The existing two runways are situated too close together to do simultaneous take-offs.
Did they build the runways too close by accident? Or was it a surveying error?
Lack of land.
I am not an airport expert, but I believe that there would still be a considerably increase in capacity in while simultaneous takeoffs and landings are not possible, that the combined headways could still be considerably reduced, or perhaps one could be handing takeoffs while the other was handling landings.
Well, NextGen would take care of some of those issues, allowing for possible simultaneous (or far closer) takeoffs and landings.
Are they planning to extend the Southbound Blue-route 3 lane past exit 9? The work on the exit & filling of asphalt on the left shoulder makes me believe they are.
iPhone
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 03:44:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 03:31:16 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 11:25:38 AM
Case & point: the plan to build an additional parallel runway at PHL (south of the current Runway 9R/27L) has been put on indefinite hold. OTOH, the eastern extension of R/W 27L opened about two months ago.
I thought they already had two parallel runways for 9R/27L. Current aerial views seem to show that (?).
They do; the additional new one I'm referring to would be the third. The existing two runways are situated too close together to do simultaneous take-offs.
Why? Turbulence?
And how far apart must parallel runways be to permit simultaneous takeoffs?
ixnay
Quote from: Tonytone on October 18, 2018, 12:33:23 AM
Are they planning to extend the Southbound Blue-route 3 lane past exit 9? The work on the exit & filling of asphalt on the left shoulder makes me believe they are.
iPhone
The eventual goal is shoulder-running lanes. I am not sure if the work they are doing now is related.
http://www2.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/penndots-fix-for-traffic-jams-on-the-blue-route-and-i-95-let-drivers-use-the-shoulders-20171013.html
Quote from: ixnay on October 18, 2018, 06:15:41 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2018, 03:44:10 PMThe existing two runways are situated too close together to do simultaneous take-offs.
Why? Turbulence?
And how far apart must parallel runways be to permit simultaneous takeoffs?
Per the FAA Advisory Circular on Airport Design, Chapter 3, which covers Runway Design, Page 87 (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5300-13A-chg1-interactive-201804.pdf)
Quote from: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Chapter 3, Section 316B(2)(a)(ii)Simultaneous radar departures require a parallel runway centerline separation of at least 2,500 feet
PHL's current parallel major runways (one of them dates back to when the airport came into existence, the other was built in the 1970s) are only 1,400 feet apart per the earlier-posted PowerPoint presentation.
Quote from: Flyer78 on October 18, 2018, 08:14:29 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 18, 2018, 12:33:23 AM
Are they planning to extend the Southbound Blue-route 3 lane past exit 9? The work on the exit & filling of asphalt on the left shoulder makes me believe they are.
The eventual goal is shoulder-running lanes. I am not sure if the work they are doing now is related.
http://www2.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/penndots-fix-for-traffic-jams-on-the-blue-route-and-i-95-let-drivers-use-the-shoulders-20171013.html
I'm not sure such was mentioned previously on this thread (thanks for steering the discussion back on topic, BTW) but I-476 south of PA 3 was indeed constructed with a future widening
from the inside (narrowing of the median) in mind. This approach would not require any additional land takings in the process. Several of the I-476 mainline overpass abutments have extra space for such a widening.
The use of the right shoulders as a travel lane per the above-link (something that's been done in the Greater Boston area for decades, many of which were eliminated when the highways were actually widened) would be viewed as an interim step towards a future widening.
Quote from: Tonytone on October 18, 2018, 12:33:23 AM
Are they planning to extend the Southbound Blue-route 3 lane past exit 9? The work on the exit & filling of asphalt on the left shoulder makes me believe they are.
iPhone
Projects like widenings are planned years in advance (in the case of PA, decades). They undergo extreme amounts of scrutiny. They undergo extreme amounts of debate and protests. There are public meeting held. There is a massive amount of media exposure. Heck, it would even be talked about on here extensively. A widening wouldn't be done without anyone noticing.
Here's Exit 9, PA 3: https://goo.gl/maps/L2k3rrHSVLs . The left shoulder is 8 feet wide, with another foot or two clearance before you get to the bridge supports. It's not wide enough to support a 3rd lane. On the right side you have the gore area, then the bridge slope. There would need to be extensive work done here to add a 3rd lane here. So nothing indicates a little extra asphalt would equate to a full widening.
It is a great idea to review the TIPs for PA and DE, as they provide a lot of insight into the projects in the region. The DVRPC is a great starting point for TIPs for PA and NJ: https://www.dvrpc.org/TIP/ . The site is a little clumsy, and sometimes you have to click twice on things to make it work, but all future projects are in there. In the case of 476, there is a future project to use the shoulders for lanes and such, but that's a few years away at best: https://www.dvrpc.org/TIP/PA/expanded/104821 . NJDOT's actual website provides a better way to review their TIP projects; not sure if PennDOT has something similar.
As for the current work going on that you mentioned - I can't find anything in regards to it at all. It doesn't appear to be on the FY17 PA TIP, and Google searches aren't bringing up anything as well.
Now, are the TIPs perfect? No. Are there occasional surprise projects that pop up, or things that appear to happen without warning? Yep. But an extensive widening for 9 miles that will eventually be a well-over $100 million project wouldn't be one of them. And unlike what most people believe, I-476 will need a lot of work to add a 3rd lane; a lot more than just an additional 12 feet of asphalt. While much of the highway was built with a 3rd lane in mind, it's not completely ready. Along with examples like the overpass above, this overpass https://goo.gl/maps/RtHNLwuZShk would need to be widened as well.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2018, 09:39:18 AMAlong with examples like the overpass above, this overpass https://goo.gl/maps/RtHNLwuZShk would need to be widened as well.
As one who's walked the Leiper-Smedley Trail underneath that overpass many times; even those abutments (in the distance) (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8983425,-75.3601252,3a,75y,310.39h,66.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYiCZgECYyM0C585COjRsBw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) were built with inner
shelf space to accommodate future additional beams to carry the additional two lanes. Granted, the GSV shots at this particular overpass don't give one a more up-close & personal view of such; but such are indeed there.
Long story short, the outer ends of those overpasses don't need to be modified for the additional
inner lanes.
Well it would seem that they are trying to push the exit more to the right, to allow room for another lane probably up to the "Truck Lane" . I say this because the construction on Exit 9 is to the right. & if they move the exit more to the right, they can use the additional space for the 3rd lane to merge correctly with the onramp. Aswell the bridge has room for the 3rd lane & the cars to merge. When you get caught in the BlueRoutes Parking lot during rush hour, You start to see that the 3rd lane implementation is not gonna be that hard. Noting the fact that 75% of the blue route, has sections where its ready for the 3rd lane. Such as the part you showed, @P. So we may see a start. Did I just see that article said I-95 as well. Right before the 322 exit merge nightmare. The gantry before that has extra room on the left for an additional lane, It probably wont be done for years, but thats something worth noting. Also the Southbound side of 95 has been paved up to the Delaware stateline & looks like they will be fixing their half of the side.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on October 18, 2018, 12:13:35 PM
Well it would seem that they are trying to push the exit more to the right, to allow room for another lane probably up to the “Truck Lane”. I say this because the construction on Exit 9 is to the right. & if they move the exit more to the right, they can use the additional space for the 3rd lane to merge correctly with the onramp. Aswell the bridge has room for the 3rd lane & the cars to merge. When you get caught in the BlueRoutes Parking lot during rush hour, You start to see that the 3rd lane implementation is not gonna be that hard. Noting the fact that 75% of the blue route, has sections where its ready for the 3rd lane. Such as the part you showed, @P. So we may see a start. Did I just see that article said I-95 as well. Right before the 322 exit merge nightmare. The gantry before that has extra room on the left for an additional lane, It probably wont be done for years, but thats something worth noting. Also the Southbound side of 95 has been paved up to the Delaware stateline & looks like they will be fixing their half of the side.
iPhone
You clearly ignored everything I said about TIPs and funding.
Maybe you're right, but I've yet to find a single hint that they are changing the exit configuration.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2018, 12:22:29 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 18, 2018, 12:13:35 PM
Well it would seem that they are trying to push the exit more to the right, to allow room for another lane probably up to the “Truck Lane”. I say this because the construction on Exit 9 is to the right. & if they move the exit more to the right, they can use the additional space for the 3rd lane to merge correctly with the onramp. Aswell the bridge has room for the 3rd lane & the cars to merge. When you get caught in the BlueRoutes Parking lot during rush hour, You start to see that the 3rd lane implementation is not gonna be that hard. Noting the fact that 75% of the blue route, has sections where its ready for the 3rd lane. Such as the part you showed, @P. So we may see a start. Did I just see that article said I-95 as well. Right before the 322 exit merge nightmare. The gantry before that has extra room on the left for an additional lane, It probably wont be done for years, but thats something worth noting. Also the Southbound side of 95 has been paved up to the Delaware stateline & looks like they will be fixing their half of the side.
iPhone
You clearly ignored everything I said about TIPs and funding.
Maybe you're right, but I've yet to find a single hint that they are changing the exit configuration.
Sorry jeff I was getting to that to. PA puts these websites up with these crazy ass dates. Whats the point? How can a big place like Pa argue about getting roads done. But NJ even bigger, has phenomenal roads & delaware smaller then both of the states, is 2nd running with the good roads. Seems like more corruption then working happening.
Or maybe Pa wants to go back to dirt roads.
&Thank you for those links as well J&N.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on October 18, 2018, 12:26:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2018, 12:22:29 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 18, 2018, 12:13:35 PM
Well it would seem that they are trying to push the exit more to the right, to allow room for another lane probably up to the “Truck Lane”. I say this because the construction on Exit 9 is to the right. & if they move the exit more to the right, they can use the additional space for the 3rd lane to merge correctly with the onramp. Aswell the bridge has room for the 3rd lane & the cars to merge. When you get caught in the BlueRoutes Parking lot during rush hour, You start to see that the 3rd lane implementation is not gonna be that hard. Noting the fact that 75% of the blue route, has sections where its ready for the 3rd lane. Such as the part you showed, @P. So we may see a start. Did I just see that article said I-95 as well. Right before the 322 exit merge nightmare. The gantry before that has extra room on the left for an additional lane, It probably wont be done for years, but thats something worth noting. Also the Southbound side of 95 has been paved up to the Delaware stateline & looks like they will be fixing their half of the side.
iPhone
You clearly ignored everything I said about TIPs and funding.
Maybe you're right, but I've yet to find a single hint that they are changing the exit configuration.
Sorry jeff I was getting to that to. PA puts these websites up with these crazy ass dates. Whats the point? How can a big place like Pa argue about getting roads done. But NJ even bigger, has phenomenal roads & delaware smaller then both of the states, is 2nd running with the good roads. Seems like more corruption then working happening.
Or maybe Pa wants to go back to dirt roads.
&Thank you for those links as well J&N.
iPhone
I think that Delaware's roads are far superior to NJ's roads. PA's interstates have gotten a lot better, but every other non-freeway road appears to be potholed to death.
All states have projections for their expected funding. The recently story of 95's viaduct being reconstructed in Delaware is 2 years away, and they have projections for several years beyond that. Plans change, funding changes, priorities change, etc, so often times something planned for several years out is pushed back, but at least it's a start.
I usually count on any project to be delayed at least a year or two from when I first see it appear in a NJDOT TIP. Sometimes there's surprises and a project is pushed up, or a new project suddenly appears ready to go this year. One notable case is NJ 73 and Fellowship Road in Mt. Laurel. There's a intersection improvement project on the TIP that should be engineered, designed, and constructed within the next 5 years. However, that project already happened during the past year! A new Walmart is being built nearby, and all the planned modifications occurred when they were building it. This was never a project NJDOT put out to bid, so I can only guess they managed to get Walmart to pay for most of it. And yet, it still appears on the TIP!
From PennDOT Press Releases:
QuoteMotorists will encounter single lane closures in both directions on Route 3 (West Chester Pike) between the Interstate 476 Interchange and New Ardmore Avenue in Marple Township, Delaware County, on Monday, October 22, through Friday, October 26, from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM, for excavation, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) announced today.
Motorists are advised to allow extra time when traveling through the work area. The schedule is weather dependent.
The excavation is part of a $3.9 million project by Marple Associates, LP to improve the I-476/Route 3 (West Chester Pike) Interchange. Marple Associates, LP will complete this project under a PennDOT Highway Occupancy Permit.
It looks like some ramp widening, intersection widening (and I'm guessing PA 3 short-distance widening) from the few times I've driven down I-476 in the last couple of months. Nothing occurring directly on I-476 beyond anything specifically related to the ramps.
I-95's new asphalt is already losing its black color. If this isnt an indications of how badly it needs 4-5 lanes then I dont know what will.
iPhone
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2018, 01:42:11 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 18, 2018, 12:26:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2018, 12:22:29 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 18, 2018, 12:13:35 PM
Well it would seem that they are trying to push the exit more to the right, to allow room for another lane probably up to the “Truck Lane”. I say this because the construction on Exit 9 is to the right. & if they move the exit more to the right, they can use the additional space for the 3rd lane to merge correctly with the onramp. Aswell the bridge has room for the 3rd lane & the cars to merge. When you get caught in the BlueRoutes Parking lot during rush hour, You start to see that the 3rd lane implementation is not gonna be that hard. Noting the fact that 75% of the blue route, has sections where its ready for the 3rd lane. Such as the part you showed, @P. So we may see a start. Did I just see that article said I-95 as well. Right before the 322 exit merge nightmare. The gantry before that has extra room on the left for an additional lane, It probably wont be done for years, but thats something worth noting. Also the Southbound side of 95 has been paved up to the Delaware stateline & looks like they will be fixing their half of the side.
iPhone
You clearly ignored everything I said about TIPs and funding.
Maybe you're right, but I've yet to find a single hint that they are changing the exit configuration.
Sorry jeff I was getting to that to. PA puts these websites up with these crazy ass dates. Whats the point? How can a big place like Pa argue about getting roads done. But NJ even bigger, has phenomenal roads & delaware smaller then both of the states, is 2nd running with the good roads. Seems like more corruption then working happening.
Or maybe Pa wants to go back to dirt roads.
&Thank you for those links as well J&N.
iPhone
I think that Delaware's roads are far superior to NJ's roads. PA's interstates have gotten a lot better, but every other non-freeway road appears to be potholed to death.
All states have projections for their expected funding. The recently story of 95's viaduct being reconstructed in Delaware is 2 years away, and they have projections for several years beyond that. Plans change, funding changes, priorities change, etc, so often times something planned for several years out is pushed back, but at least it's a start.
I usually count on any project to be delayed at least a year or two from when I first see it appear in a NJDOT TIP. Sometimes there's surprises and a project is pushed up, or a new project suddenly appears ready to go this year. One notable case is NJ 73 and Fellowship Road in Mt. Laurel. There's a intersection improvement project on the TIP that should be engineered, designed, and constructed within the next 5 years. However, that project already happened during the past year! A new Walmart is being built nearby, and all the planned modifications occurred when they were building it. This was never a project NJDOT put out to bid, so I can only guess they managed to get Walmart to pay for most of it. And yet, it still appears on the TIP!
I was gonna mention, that I seen on Delaware's Gov front page, that Delaware is #1 is roads in the U.S. I dont know if thats still true today. But thats a very interesting fact. Delawares roads are good. Maybe Nj just beats DE in Highways. Businesses can pay for a road to be built? Wow Walmart does have that money. But I believe roads just be funded on depending on how bad it inflicts daily life.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on October 18, 2018, 03:46:04 PM
I-95's new asphalt is already losing its black color. If this isnt an indications of how badly it needs 4-5 lanes then I dont know what will.
Two factors:
1. Roadway surfaces can fade for a variety of reasons, mostly due to ultraviolet light exposure.
2. The binder, bitumen, can wear away because of heavy traffic loads, weather, and ultraviolet light breaking down the chemical composition. The stone aggregate, usually lighter in color, can become exposed.
Both are not indicators that a roadway need repaving.
Quote from: seicer on October 18, 2018, 09:45:13 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 18, 2018, 03:46:04 PM
I-95's new asphalt is already losing its black color. If this isnt an indications of how badly it needs 4-5 lanes then I dont know what will.
Two factors:
1. Roadway surfaces can fade for a variety of reasons, mostly due to ultraviolet light exposure.
2. The binder, bitumen, can wear away because of heavy traffic loads, weather, and ultraviolet light breaking down the chemical composition. The stone aggregate, usually lighter in color, can become exposed.
Both are not indicators that a roadway need repaving.
A roadway loses it's color in a week ? Cmon. Thats signs of heavy road use. If traffic was being evenly distributed, then there wouldn't be such road deterioration.
iPhone
A roadway won't lose its color in a week. It may show signs of use, but that's because it's actually being used as intended. It doesn't mean that the roadway is deteriorating. There are newly repaved roads up here in upstate New York that have faded considerably since they were laid but they are in like-new condition. Such is life.
Quote from: seicer on October 19, 2018, 07:33:07 AM
A roadway won't lose its color in a week. It may show signs of use, but that's because it's actually being used as intended. It doesn't mean that the roadway is deteriorating. There are newly repaved roads up here in upstate New York that have faded considerably since they were laid but they are in like-new condition. Such is life.
Well I suppose it's evened out now. Since they are paving the other lanes. I hope they repave all of 95 in Chester & not just parts like some places like to do.
iPhone