Are there any plans afoot to eliminate the traffic signals between the Ben Franklin Bridge and the Vine Street Expressway in Philadelphia on the I-676? There was talk of a westbound ramp several years ago.
Mr. G sends
First, welcome to the forums! :) Second, I'm not sure anyone is getting a ramp put up there to eliminate the traffic signals between the VSE and the BFB, mainly because that area is heavily built up, and like other past projects in Philadelphia, would probably face stiff opposition and end up getting shafted.
Yes, there was talk. It's not happening. Too much money for something they don't perceive as a problem.
I read somewhere there was serious concern about the impact ramps might have on the nearby historic sites. Don't know if that's true, but it's a worthy reason to forego them if it is accurate.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2014, 06:13:06 PM
I read somewhere there was serious concern about the impact ramps might have on the nearby historic sites. Don't know if that's true, but it's a worthy reason to forego them if it is accurate.
Properly done, Ben Franklin Square wouldn't suffer at all, but it's the Appeal to Hysteria that kills it every time.
Quote from: Alps on August 20, 2014, 07:39:36 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2014, 06:13:06 PM
I read somewhere there was serious concern about the impact ramps might have on the nearby historic sites. Don't know if that's true, but it's a worthy reason to forego them if it is accurate.
Properly done, Ben Franklin Square wouldn't suffer at all, but it's the Appeal to Hysteria that kills it every time.
As long as it took for them to get the Vine Street Expressway extended to I-95? I wouldn't expect to see it in my lifetime.
They had their chance to get this right the first time and they blew it. I remember when the Vine St. expressway was extended and couldn't believe after all that trouble that they ended up with the lights. Why even bother with the westbound overpass over 6th St. then? It's like a teaser for a direct freeway connection, followed by a slap in the face once you get over the hill and come up on the lights.
I'm also pretty sure they replaced the signage to stay on 676 eastbound at one point to better sign it for the bridge. I think the original signage for 676/30 EB indicated Independence Mall or 6th St. or something like that, with the bridge listed second - almost as if they were embarrassed to clearly indicate that this was the mainline of 676 for the bridge, because you were going to come down the hill and end up at a traffic signal on a city street.
But with this configuration, you get unusual signage as well... http://goo.gl/maps/Ry1ub
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 21, 2014, 12:47:29 AM
They had their chance to get this right the first time and they blew it. I remember when the Vine St. expressway was extended and couldn't believe after all that trouble that they ended up with the lights. Why even bother with the westbound overpass over 6th St. then? It's like a teaser for a direct freeway connection, followed by a slap in the face once you get over the hill and come up on the lights.
I'm also pretty sure they replaced the signage to stay on 676 eastbound at one point to better sign it for the bridge. I think the original signage for 676/30 EB indicated Independence Mall or 6th St. or something like that, with the bridge listed second - almost as if they were embarrassed to clearly indicate that this was the mainline of 676 for the bridge, because you were going to come down the hill and end up at a traffic signal on a city street.
That was probably due to the lawsuit that stopped construction. Holy Redeemer Chinese Catholic Church brought the whole thing to it's knees for years, those ramps may have been the compromise that got the construction started.
I admit I know nothing about traffic levels in Philadelphia, but looking at the area in Google Earth. I see that the I-676 westbound bridge over 6th street has 5 lanes with shoulders on both sides. So, has the option been considered to maybe reconstruct that bridge to have 4 lanes westbound without without a shoulder and then build a connection from the I-676 EB 6th Street off-ramp to the bridge and route two lanes of I-676 EB north of the Lightning Bolt.
Quote from: DAL764 on August 24, 2014, 06:11:01 AM
I admit I know nothing about traffic levels in Philadelphia, but looking at the area in Google Earth. I see that the I-676 westbound bridge over 6th street has 5 lanes with shoulders on both sides. So, has the option been considered to maybe reconstruct that bridge to have 4 lanes westbound without without a shoulder and then build a connection from the I-676 EB 6th Street off-ramp to the bridge and route two lanes of I-676 EB north of the Lightning Bolt.
I've thought of that myself as well. It would at least provide a direct connection eastbound. Westbound a bit more trickier. One of the problems of having at least 2 lanes eastbound with a direct connection, is that you could only get one more lane eastbound onto the bridge from 5th St/Independence Mall when there is 3 bridge lanes outbound, which might not be enough to accommodate local traffic onto the bridge.
As noted in the link below, 7 overpasses to be replaced above I-676 in Philly for $64 million. Based on that price, I'm guessing they'll be repairing or replacing the bridge decks, but not the bridge beams.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20141213_7_bridges_over_Vine_Street_Expressway_to_be_replaced.html
Basically, the project limits are the overpasses between 76 (but not including 76) east to the Logan Square area.
The actual PennDOT release states it's a complete reconstruction...the current bridges are two-span with a pier in the middle; the new bridges are single-span and the piers in the median iof I-676 are going to be removed.
It looks like the work will be done on this older segment: https://goo.gl/maps/3KigZ How old are these bridges?
And I would agree with a poster on that article - cap the darn thing already. It's miserable to walk anywhere near and with all of the developments ongoing near the interstate and the city center, a cap would assist in the property values and bring a linear park to a highway tract.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on December 12, 2014, 03:02:38 PMHow old are these bridges?
The original (western) portion of the Vine Expressway was built 1957-1959; around the same time as the Schuylkill Expressway.
Vine Expressway Historic Overview on PhillyRoads.com (http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/vine/)
Capping it could be an expensive proposition, since with all the traffic that flows through it, and how backed up it can get, the exhaust system would be enormous and take up valuable clearance on the sides and center, if you use the new style turbine ones, and even more if you use the older style plenum.
IIRC, in addition to its cost, the future capping of existing depressed freeways has been pretty much discouraged in the wake of the events of 9/11/01.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2014, 03:19:57 PM
IIRC, in addition to its cost, the future capping of existing depressed freeways has been pretty much discouraged in the wake of the events of 9/11/01.
what
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2014, 03:25:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2014, 03:19:57 PM
IIRC, in addition to its cost, the future capping of existing depressed freeways has been pretty much discouraged in the wake of the events of 9/11/01.
what
Think about it for a moment. What does more damage in the wake of a bomb blast: an open-air ground-level roadway or one in an enclosed tunnel?
Believe it or not (and I'm not making this up Dan) , the 9/11 reference was recently used a
Philly Inquirer article several months back as
one new reason why a long-term plan to cap the middle
bathtub section of I-95 in Center City Philadelphia (it was originally designed for such in mind) will probably not happen (in addition to current construction costs).
Lest we forget, prior to 9/11; there was Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman who was jailed during the 90s for conspiring to blow up several NYC landmarks including the Holland & Lincoln Tunnels. Wiki Account of NYC Landmark Bomb Plot circa 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_landmark_bomb_plot)
The bottom line here is due to terrorist attacks that have taken place
worldwide (including the 3/11/04 subway bombing in Madrid) within the last 13 years; the push to either bury or place everything in a tunnel may have lost momentum... at least in the U.S.
Nope. Just a bullshit excuse by Philly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klyde_Warren_Park
Hell, did they not recently cover a trenched freeway in Dallas.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on December 14, 2014, 05:32:51 PM
Hell, did they not recently cover a trenched freeway in Dallas.
If I could merge your post with NE2's, I would.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2014, 03:50:44 PMThe bottom line here is due to terrorist attacks that have taken place worldwide (including the 3/11/04 subway bombing in Madrid) within the last 13 years; the push to either bury or place everything in a tunnel may have lost momentum... at least in the U.S.
The Madrid bombings weren't subway or in tunnel!
The 7/7 London bombings, however, were (well three of them) in tunnel, but they also show that cut-and-cover tunnels don't offer much potential for increasing fatalities - the people who were killed at Edgware Road (while damage was caused to a wall that later collapsed and another train) and Aldgate killed just 6 and 7 respectively - the bus bomb killed as many as that combined in the open air and next to a hospital. OK, the tunnels were wider than usual cut-and-cover metros, as the bombs went off at junctions - but no larger than a highway tunnel would be (if not considerably smaller). The bombs only killed those within ~3m the bomber as the explosions had room to dissipate*.
And yes, I'm not forgetting Russell Square - 31 people killed in on a line with greater than 4 people/m^2 in a single track bored tunnel 30m underground that the train only just fits in. I'm excluding it as you will never find the people density, nor the closed in surrounds, on a road tunnel.
The people density is never enough for a cut-and-cover road tunnel to be a meaningful target to terrorise people: a bridge as a symbol, a subway for the fatalities, but a freeway just doesn't make sense. Even if the tunnel collapses, unless there's like some big event or building on top, the fatalities wouldn't increase over the same bomb in the same place, but without the cap on top. It's different with bored tunnels, where everything is closer, fire can get really hot, there might be a breach in an underwater tunnel - but cut-and-cover would need a big bomb (with which you can attempt a Docklands '96 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing) or WTC '93 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing) attack on an office building: which can have devastating effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing)) or a low roof, and a traffic jam to kill more than the people in the vehicle that the bomb is in and even then not that many.
*I'm firmly of the belief, and very glad that it wasn't the case, that if the bombings had been more competently planned, they would have been more destructive. Rather than just getting on any old tube train at Kings Cross St Pancras, they would have simply gone for the three deep lines and not bothered with the sub-surface lines.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2014, 03:50:44 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2014, 03:25:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2014, 03:19:57 PM
IIRC, in addition to its cost, the future capping of existing depressed freeways has been pretty much discouraged in the wake of the events of 9/11/01.
what
Think about it for a moment. What does more damage in the wake of a bomb blast: an open-air ground-level roadway or one in an enclosed tunnel?
Believe it or not (and I'm not making this up Dan) , the 9/11 reference was recently used a Philly Inquirer article several months back as one new reason why a long-term plan to cap the middle bathtub section of I-95 in Center City Philadelphia (it was originally designed for such in mind) will probably not happen (in addition to current construction costs).
Lest we forget, prior to 9/11; there was Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman who was jailed during the 90s for conspiring to blow up several NYC landmarks including the Holland & Lincoln Tunnels. Wiki Account of NYC Landmark Bomb Plot circa 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_landmark_bomb_plot)
The bottom line here is due to terrorist attacks that have taken place worldwide (including the 3/11/04 subway bombing in Madrid) within the last 13 years; the push to either bury or place everything in a tunnel may have lost momentum... at least in the U.S.
I always thought the Big Dig cost disaster was a big reason behind the lack of cut-and-cover tunnels.
Besides, in Philly, anything that has been discussed about Penns Landing has resulted in a lot of hot air. A lot of people blame 95, but really it's people seeing how well Baltimore's Inner Harbor has done and figured that we can easily copy it, which it ain't all that easy to do.
Hell, might as well stop building bridges! Can you imagine what would happen if the I-35W bridge collapse due to terr... oh wait. Oops. That was our fault.
Capping a depressed freeway works very well as a means of softening its aesthetic impact on an urban environment. But if you are coming at this from the perspective that cars themselves have a negative impact on the urban environment, it doesn't at all address the root concern since it still permits just as many people to keep driving.
This, it seems, is a key reason why proposals to cap a freeway are opposed. It comes across as a lipstick on a pig situation, trying to hide the bad evil freeway instead of getting the wrecking ball and killing it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 15, 2014, 06:16:52 AMI always thought the Big Dig cost disaster was a big reason behind the lack of cut-and-cover tunnels.
Cost was indeed the main reason and still is.
The fore-mentioned security concerns from the
Inquirer article I read earlier this year (I can't seem to presently locate it in the archives; such wouldn't be the first time an article was deleted - I should've saved the hard-copy so I could've at least referenced the date and the article's author) was either a recently added concern (which was why the capping project in Dallas went forward), erroneous (which might explain why it was pulled from the archives) or an exaggeration/red herring.
Every now & then, the Inky will have an another article or two regarding Penn's Landing or I-95; if I spot another reference or new info., I'll post it... unless someone else beats me to the punch.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 15, 2014, 06:16:52 AM
Besides, in Philly, anything that has been discussed about Penns Landing has resulted in a lot of hot air. A lot of people blame 95, but really it's people seeing how well Baltimore's Inner Harbor has done and figured that we can easily copy it, which it ain't all that easy to do.
The main differences between Baltimore's Inner Harbor & Philly's Penn Landing are that:
1. In Baltimore, several highways that would've intruded into the Inner Harbor area (or at least approached it) were never built (I-70 & 83 extensions come to mind).
2. In Baltimore, there are no plans to cut/eliminate I-95 in that area; it runs near the area via the Fort McHenry Tunnel.
3. The soon-to-gone former-I-170 corridor was an isolated orphan that never connected to existing freeways on either end.
4. Aside from the already-canned Crosstown/South St. Expressway (I-695); there were no other highway plans near or at the Penns Landing area.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 15, 2014, 06:16:52 AM
I always thought the Big Dig cost disaster was a big reason behind the lack of cut-and-cover tunnels.
Big Dig was not cut and cover. Big Dig was tunneling beneath an existing highway while maintaining traffic. With the way the Alaskan Way is going now, it's a surprise anyone would ever attempt such a thing again. Cut and cover is easy.
Well, at least a portion of the Big Dig was cut and cover.
Regardless if it's easy, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of cut and cover tunneling projects out there currently.
The trouble with cut and cover is that while it is the easiest way to build a tunnel it is also the way that is most disruptive to everything on the surface during construction. This makes implementing it in an urban area in modern times difficult because the community will always complain.
Not to mention that given the spaghetti of utilities that is under modern urban streets, sometimes it is simply easier to just bore underneath all that crap than to try and untangle/relocate it all to make way for the tunnel.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 17, 2014, 12:00:59 AMNot to mention that given the spaghetti of utilities that is under modern urban streets, sometimes it is simply easier to just bore underneath all that crap than to try and untangle/relocate it all to make way for the tunnel.
That was one of the first undertakings in Boston's Big Dig project; massive utility relocations.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 17, 2014, 08:24:52 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 17, 2014, 12:00:59 AMNot to mention that given the spaghetti of utilities that is under modern urban streets, sometimes it is simply easier to just bore underneath all that crap than to try and untangle/relocate it all to make way for the tunnel.
That was one of the first undertakings in Boston's Big Dig project; massive utility relocations.
One of the first undertakings was also to connect an elevated bridge to an elevated highway via a tunnel between them under a public square. Connecting a depressed road to a bridge ought not be so hard
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2014, 11:06:38 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 17, 2014, 08:24:52 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 17, 2014, 12:00:59 AMNot to mention that given the spaghetti of utilities that is under modern urban streets, sometimes it is simply easier to just bore underneath all that crap than to try and untangle/relocate it all to make way for the tunnel.
That was one of the first undertakings in Boston's Big Dig project; massive utility relocations.
One of the first undertakings was also to connect an elevated bridge to an elevated highway via a tunnel between them under a public square. Connecting a depressed road to a bridge ought not be so hard
If you're referring to the work in City Square/Charlestown vicinity along US 1; that was actually a separate project (Central Artery North Area aka CANA) and not part of the overall Big Dig. I was strictly referring to the
actual Big Dig (aka Central Artery Tunnel) project itself.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 17, 2014, 01:34:53 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2014, 11:06:38 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 17, 2014, 08:24:52 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 17, 2014, 12:00:59 AMNot to mention that given the spaghetti of utilities that is under modern urban streets, sometimes it is simply easier to just bore underneath all that crap than to try and untangle/relocate it all to make way for the tunnel.
That was one of the first undertakings in Boston's Big Dig project; massive utility relocations.
One of the first undertakings was also to connect an elevated bridge to an elevated highway via a tunnel between them under a public square. Connecting a depressed road to a bridge ought not be so hard
If you're referring to the work in City Square/Charlestown vicinity along US 1; that was actually a separate project (Central Artery North Area aka CANA) and not part of the overall Big Dig. I was strictly referring to the actual Big Dig (aka Central Artery Tunnel) project itself.
Not part of the Central Artery, but I'd lump it in with the overall "Big Dig." Regardless, this is peripheral to my point.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
One of the first undertakings was also to connect an elevated bridge to an elevated highway via a tunnel between them under a public square. Connecting a depressed road to a bridge ought not be so hard
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
One of the first undertakings was also to connect an elevated bridge to an elevated highway via a tunnel between them under a public square. Connecting a depressed road to a bridge ought not be so hard
Did you mean to double post the same thing?
Quote from: Zeffy on December 17, 2014, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
One of the first undertakings was also to connect an elevated bridge to an elevated highway via a tunnel between them under a public square. Connecting a depressed road to a bridge ought not be so hard
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
One of the first undertakings was also to connect an elevated bridge to an elevated highway via a tunnel between them under a public square. Connecting a depressed road to a bridge ought not be so hard
Did you mean to double post the same thing?
closer you get to the bridge, the closer you get to the PATCO tunnels that run between the bridge and 8th and market (next stop after the bridge, not counting the closed Franklin Square Station)
Quote from: Zeffy on December 17, 2014, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
One of the first undertakings was also to connect an elevated bridge to an elevated highway via a tunnel between them under a public square. Connecting a depressed road to a bridge ought not be so hard
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
One of the first undertakings was also to connect an elevated bridge to an elevated highway via a tunnel between them under a public square. Connecting a depressed road to a bridge ought not be so hard
Did you mean to double post the same thing?
Nope. Tapatalk stutter.
As mentioned earlier, the Big Dig was far more extensive than a cut-and-cover tunnel. You basically had an elevated freeway that had a bunch of exits connect via preexisting tunnels, and that actually turned into a tunnel at one end, replaced by an extension of that tunnel which also had to tie in with all of the preexisting tunnels and ground level ramps WHILE still maintaining the original elevated freeway and ramps that sat directly above the new tunnel. And I'm not sure if they count as part of the Big Dig, but you also built two brand new underwater tunnels (Fort Point Tunnel and Ted Williams Tunnel) WITH a spaghetti maze of associated underwater ramps connecting to them.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 21, 2014, 10:14:36 AM
As mentioned earlier, the Big Dig was far more extensive than a cut-and-cover tunnel. You basically had an elevated freeway that had a bunch of exits connect via preexisting tunnels, and that actually turned into a tunnel at one end, replaced by an extension of that tunnel which also had to tie in with all of the preexisting tunnels and ground level ramps WHILE still maintaining the original elevated freeway and ramps that sat directly above the new tunnel. And I'm not sure if they count as part of the Big Dig, but you also built two brand new underwater tunnels (Fort Point Tunnel and Ted Williams Tunnel) WITH a spaghetti maze of associated underwater ramps connecting to them.
Is this in response to my comment about the City Square tunnel? My point was that even that relatively minor part of the Big Dig was more complicated than this 676 connection, and was still quite doable.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urbanrail.net%2Fam%2Fphil%2Fphiladelphia-map.gif&hash=062415b97c7d9fea66dfbe489b460bc1e31fb682)
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 24, 2014, 09:45:22 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urbanrail.net%2Fam%2Fphil%2Fphiladelphia-map.gif&hash=062415b97c7d9fea66dfbe489b460bc1e31fb682)
Is there a reason why you're posting a SEPTA map?
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 29, 2014, 09:51:25 AMIs there a reason why you're posting a SEPTA map?
he was illustrating his previous comment about the PATCO tunnels at the base of the bridge.
Quote from: odditude on December 29, 2014, 09:58:54 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 29, 2014, 09:51:25 AMIs there a reason why you're posting a SEPTA map?
he was illustrating his previous comment about the PATCO tunnels at the base of the bridge.
Yes, i thought i typed something beneath it, but yeah, that entire area is a snarl of tunnels
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 14, 2015, 03:32:13 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 29, 2014, 09:58:54 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 29, 2014, 09:51:25 AMIs there a reason why you're posting a SEPTA map?
he was illustrating his previous comment about the PATCO tunnels at the base of the bridge.
Yes, i thought i typed something beneath it, but yeah, that entire area is a snarl of tunnels
basically, underneath the franklin square is the PATCO station that has been potentially put on the "refurbish for use" program. Honestly, the best thing to do would be to leave it be, and use that money towards fixing I-76
Would you not like the Franklin Square station reopened, or do you doubt that PATCO will ever stop the studies to do so??
Quote from: Chris19001 on January 15, 2015, 01:12:18 PM
Would you not like the Franklin Square station reopened, or do you doubt that PATCO will ever stop the studies to do so??
I meant use the money that could be spent to fix the road configuration and put it towards making i-76 better. I want that station reopened.