A Big Dig Coming to Philadelphia?

[PAHighways]

The section of Interstate 95 near Penn's Landing is nearing the end of its functional life and will require reconstruction.  However, some would rather eliminate the expressway entirely.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090628_Deep_six_for_I-95_by_Penn_s_Landing_.html

[mightyace]

Well, if you re-route I-95 onto the NJ turnpike like it should be, how much traffic would that divert?

[Duke87]

Oh, this is lovely. We're finally gearing up to make I-95 whole, and some people want to rip a piece of it out, ruining that.

The highway's already in a trench. Wouldn't it make much more sense to just cover more of it over? You can bury it entirely from South Street to Chestnut Street. Maybe even up to Market Street (though the SB entrance ramp would need to be dealt with).

[Alps]

Just a few years ago they completely redid the section actually at/under Penn's Landing.  This isn't going to happen - and the FHWA certainly would not let Philly get rid of I-95.

[Hellfighter]

Just make it another big dig, just don't repeat the same mistakes that Boston had to suffer.

[Ian]

How about reroute I-95 and make the boulavard section at Penns Landing become Business Loop 95 or something like that.

It would also be kind of neat to have an underground I-95 in Philadelphia. Though the project would be tough and while building it, its going to ruin a lot of nice scenery.

[Alps]

How about reroute I-95 and make the boulavard section at Penns Landing become Business Loop 95 or something like that.

Nowhere else to put 95.  The whole idea of having it on this side of the river was to bring it through Philly.  I don't see why more of the freeway can't be cut-and-cover.  It can turn into an elevated waterfront promenade.  Right now there's not much on the inland side of the freeway, so unlike Boston there's no real need to connect anything.  New development can have a first floor entrance (inland) and 2nd/3rd floor entrance (promenade).

[SSOWorld]

Well in the center of this issue is a known anti-freeway advocate named John Norquist.  This is the former Milwaukee mayor who nearly had I-794 torn down (completely) because it "separated the Historic Third Ward from the rest of downtown".  He is advocating "New Urbanism" - whatever the hell that means. (though it has a lot to do with removing the car from the face of the earth in my opinion)

[Chris]

New Urbanism is some kind of anti-car, high density concept. Though it may work to some extend in places like Hong Kong, Tokyo or even Manhattan, I don't think we will see it in America on a large scale. Housing affordability is usually a big problem with high density areas, look at Moscow, London or Paris for instance.

[njroadhorse]

Looking at Google Earth, you could almost cut and cover all of it from Washington Avenue to just before the Ben Franklin Bridge interchange.  There's a partial interchange in the way, but the ramps would not be that hard to fix.  Even the BFB interchange would just require that the ramps slope down more.

[Mergingtraffic]

yes, Norquist even came to Hartford to try to convince people to tear down I-84 in Hartford. 
and what is worse, is that the local paper did a story on it and of course it quoted all these people who would favor the highway being torn down and not one person who thought the idea was a bad one.  The papers seem to favor the anti-freeway movement too. 

Freeways are a symbol of a successful city and so are traffic jams believe it or not. 

I don't understand why people are anti-freeway, the politicians and papers here do stories on biking to work and walking to work and mass transit.  Now our CTDOT is more mass transit favored than highway.  I guess it is the "political correct" thing to do.  Even though they know most it won't benefit most people.  They can say "hey we helped transporation" without actually helping transportation.  CT isn't Manhattan and unless you are close to your job it won't work. 

Plus, Miwaukee tore down part of a spur, not a major route...interesting how Norquist and the press keep that part quiet.

Some anti-freeway people only consider commuting to work...what about going to the movies or food shopping or taking day trips?  Soon, we won't be able to do that because our freeways will be too jam packed.  But, at least we have bike lanes!

[mightyace]

I don't understand why people are anti-freeway,

I'm starting to understand why, even though I don't agree, as TN 840 is being completed a few miles from my house.

While, I'll like the utility of it.  It does pain me some to see the woods and farmland sacrificed for the highway.

But, I think I differ from the anti-freeway people in that I see that there are both positives and negatives in a new road.  And, that the positives outweigh the negatives, overall.

Plus, in my case, I new 840 was coming when I bought my house in 2002, so it's not like it's a surprise.

Also, I'm talking a rural freeway here versus an urban one.

[Hellfighter]

mighyace makes a point. Unlike a rural freeway, where there's plenty of land to use while limiting the disturbance of the surrounding areas, Urban Freeways  are much harder because of people in the way. You have to buy the land from people or use eminent domain, which can get pretty nasty.