Why would they build I-95 and I-476 like this?

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[Roadgeek2500]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

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.

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?

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

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.

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.

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

[Tonytone]

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.

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.

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

[Tonytone]

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.

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

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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.

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!)

[Tonytone]

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

[Beltway]

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).

[Tonytone]

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

[qguy]

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.

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.

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.

[odditude]

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.

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.

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.

[PHLBOS]

Or 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.

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).

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[BrianP]

Or here: https://goo.gl/maps/JPbQUMNms6s  (Please, someone, get the reference and why it's referenced!)

The 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

[PHLBOS]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[PHLBOS]

I 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

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.

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.

[ekt8750]

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.

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.

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

I 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

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.

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.

[PHLBOS]

Frontier 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.

[Chris19001]

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

[PHLBOS]

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

Yes (after looking through Historic Aerials to confirm).

[Tonytone]

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

Yes (after looking through Historic Aerials to confirm).

I assume these locations are other previous airport locations.


iPhone