Saw this article in last Friday's paper and it made my blood oil. She's basically mad because the Mayor and his transporation deputy have not stated anything regarding altering I-95 when the road gets a revamp a decade or two down the road.
She's obsessed with reconnecting Philly's waterfront to the rest of the city.
http://www.philly.com/philly/home/20120217_Changing_Skyline__Odd_silence_on_options_for_altering_I-95.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/home/20120217_Changing_Skyline__Odd_silence_on_options_for_altering_I-95.html)
Note: the article erroneously references a 'yanking' out of I-95 in Providence, RI which is absolute bunk. The only major road removal project I'm aware of was the I-195 Relocation project that was completed not too long ago.
Hopefully, this proposal will be 'DEAD ON ARRIVAL'.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2012, 12:53:08 PM
Saw this article in last Friday's paper and it made my blood oil. She's basically mad because the Mayor and his transporation deputy have not stated anything regarding altering I-95 when the road gets a revamp a decade or two down the road.
She's obsessed with reconnecting Philly's waterfront to the rest of the city.
What could be done (though it would not be cheap) would be to underground that section of the Delaware Expressway.
I don't think PennDOT or USDOT/FHWA are going to agree to remove a section of I-95.
Quotehttp://www.philly.com/philly/home/20120217_Changing_Skyline__Odd_silence_on_options_for_altering_I-95.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/home/20120217_Changing_Skyline__Odd_silence_on_options_for_altering_I-95.html)
Note: the article erroneously references a 'yanking' out of I-95 in Providence, RI which is absolute bunk. The only major road removal project I'm aware of was the I-195 Relocation project that was completed not too long ago.
Hopefully, this proposal will be 'DEAD ON ARRIVAL'.
The anti-auto/anti-highway/anti-mobility industry has been promoting these schemes in various places in the United States, usually pointing to "success stories" like the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway (former I-480, a dead-end freeway in spite of its number) in San Francisco and the cancellation of nearly all unbuilt freeways in the District of Columbia.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2012, 01:31:03 PMWhat could be done (though it would not be cheap) would be to underground that section of the Delaware Expressway.
The article briefly mentions such.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2012, 01:31:03 PMI don't think PennDOT or USDOT/FHWA are going to agree to remove a section of I-95.
Agreed. Over a decade-and-a-half ago when Center City District Director Paul Levy suggested such; PennDOT dismissed the notion as 'childish'.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2012, 01:31:03 PMThe anti-auto/anti-highway/anti-mobility industry has been promoting these schemes in various places in the United States, usually pointing to "success stories" like the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway (former I-480, a dead-end freeway in spite of its number) in San Francisco and the cancellation of nearly all unbuilt freeways in the District of Columbia.
IIRC, the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway was triggered by a certain earthquake circa 1989. BTW, that freeway was originally planned to connect to the Golden Gate Bridge.
And again, the DC example (and even Baltimore's Inner Harbor) involved roads that were never built to begin with; not removing ones that are already there... unless there was a relocation involved (I-195 in Providence & I-93 in Boston via the Big Dig).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2012, 01:31:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2012, 12:53:08 PM
Saw this article in last Friday's paper and it made my blood oil. She's basically mad because the Mayor and his transporation deputy have not stated anything regarding altering I-95 when the road gets a revamp a decade or two down the road.
She's obsessed with reconnecting Philly's waterfront to the rest of the city.
What could be done (though it would not be cheap) would be to underground that section of the Delaware Expressway.
They could complete the mid section of the cover that was omitted for cost reasons back when that segment was built.
Maybe they should garnish her wages to get it done.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2012, 01:31:03 PMThey could complete the mid section of the cover that was omitted for cost reasons back when that segment was built.
That's already discussed in the article although that's not enough to satisfy Ms. Saffron.
She's just an architecture critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer, completely unknown to me until I Googled her twenty seconds ago--why get exercised about what she says?
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 20, 2012, 04:47:58 PM
She's just an architecture critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer, completely unknown to me until I Googled her twenty seconds ago--why get exercised about what she says?
Because there have been others that share similar views and have a little more clout. Center City District Director Paul Levy being one of them. She makes a post regarding I-95 one or twice a year.
Steve Anderson gives an account in his phillyroads website:
http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/delaware/ (http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/delaware/)
Exerpt:
More than 30 years after I-95 was built through Center City, some remain bitter about the presence of the expressway. One official, Paul Levy, director of the Center City District, went as far to propose demolishing the expressway through Penn's Landing.If it was just her alone, no big deal; but I am concerned about others with more clout that view her comments as a vindication.
I can't see this ever happening. Using Columbus Blvd as an alternative (a 6-lane arterial that does NOT have ramps to the Ben Franklin Bridge) is IMO unfeasible. The only other alternative is to use I-76 and I-676, and the interchange between the two is already congested 6AM-11PM most nights. So either that interchange would get worse, or Columbus Blvd would get clogged, or.......not sure what else there is.
As stated above, the only freeway removals that were not relocated I think were not through routes.
PA barely has money to re-build bridges, and planned other upgrades of I-95 keep falling behind...another Big Dig isn't going to happen either.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on February 20, 2012, 05:33:08 PM
PA barely has money to re-build bridges, and planned other upgrades of I-95 keep falling behind...another Big Dig isn't going to happen either.
Most of what I know about Pennsylvania transportation finances has to do with the debacles associated with the (failed) efforts to toll I-80 and other Act 44 matters.
The only way that the Delaware Expressway would get funded for an undergrounding would be if it were to be tolled (and if that happened, I think it reasonable to assume that the unions representing SEPTA hourly workers would demand that they get a "fair share" of the toll revenues).
Two words: air rights.
You want more developable land? No problem, it already exists.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2012, 05:52:51 PMMost of what I know about Pennsylvania transportation finances has to do with the debacles associated with the (failed) efforts to toll I-80 and other Act 44 matters.
The only way that the Delaware Expressway would get funded for an undergrounding would be if it were to be tolled (and if that happened, I think it reasonable to assume that the unions representing SEPTA hourly workers would demand that they get a "fair share" of the toll revenues).
IIRC, the primary reason why the Toll I-80 part of the Act 44 debacle failed
3 times by the Feds (under both Bush 43 & Obama Administrations) was the fact that the would-be toll money was NOT going to the road itself but rather a 'general transportation' fund; i.e.
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul. If I-95 were to be tolled in this area; the money would have to go the I-95 upgrades and ONLY the I-95 upgrades.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2012, 04:27:49 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2012, 01:31:03 PMThey could complete the mid section of the cover that was omitted for cost reasons back when that segment was built.
That's already discussed in the article although that's not enough to satisfy Ms. Saffron.
Too bad for her. That would cover 2/3 mile of depressed I-95, following the original alignment, and would be the most effective way to cover a key section of I-95 in the downtown.
I-95 in Philadelphia carries above 100,000 AADT on every section, so there is no way that any section can be demolished.
Quote from: Beltway on February 20, 2012, 09:30:21 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2012, 04:27:49 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2012, 01:31:03 PMThey could complete the mid section of the cover that was omitted for cost reasons back when that segment was built.
That's already discussed in the article although that's not enough to satisfy Ms. Saffron.
Too bad for her. That would cover 2/3 mile of depressed I-95, following the original alignment, and would be the most effective way to cover a key section of I-95 in the downtown.
Agreed.
QuoteI-95 in Philadelphia carries above 100,000 AADT on every section, so there is no way that any section can be demolished.
Persons and groups opposed to highways (and especially urban freeways) don't care how much use a road gets (or is planned to get). To them, all that matters is opposing new highways, and if possible, degrading or removing existing ones.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 20, 2012, 06:15:16 PM
Two words: air rights. You want more developable land? No problem, it already exists.
This isn't an issue with a need for additional land. No one really wants to build over it; they want to get around it.
Forgive the long post here but as a longtime Philadelphia resident, allow me to explain some of the context. (Duke87: I hasten to add that I'm not knocking your post; it serves as a handy springboard.)
The critics are right in one way: describing the current problem. The highway does cut the city off from its waterfront. You have to see the area from a cross-sectional perspective to really understand that.
Even if I-95 were to be covered along its entire length through the area, it wouldn't really solve the problem. This is because there is an elevation differential between the edge of the current street grid (mostly along Front St.) and the level of Delaware Ave./Columbus Blvd. and the piers. I-95 cuts through at an elevation that is right in the middle of that.
Along the most desired portion, centered around Market St., I-95 was depressed just low enough that there's no way to tunnel under it, but it is still high enough that the level atop a cover is higher than the street grid and much higher than the level of Delaware Ave./Columbus Blvd. and the piers. But the distance from the highway and cover to the waterfront is very short. So there's no good way to walk, drive, or use transit from atop the cover down to the waterfront. It would always need an elaborate way to overcome the elevation change in so short a distance.
So, yes, the presence of I-95 right where it is, at that intermediate level, is not just problemmatic, it's maddening. It's not high enough to go under it, but not really low enough to go over it.
And that doesn't even consider the huge number of truly historic and rare (even here in Phila) original 18th & 19th century buildings which were bulldozed for it. That still rankles many here, even today, even among those like me who like roads. (That really is a side issue, but one not to be underestimated.)
All that being said, however, talk of removing it is beyond "childish." It's naïve in the extreme. I-95 through Philadelphia is not a local freeway of course. It's a regional highway which provides both local and regional access. It's also a major throughway. It's one of the primary ways for vehicles to get from one side of the metropolitan area to the other. Other freeways and tollways in the area simply cannot serve as functional substitutes.
To my knowledge, no other throughway freeway has ever been removed and replaced with an at-grade facility, let alone removed and had it's traffic handled by an existing at-grade facility. Either a throughway has been moved nearby, either down (Boston) or aside (Providence), or the highway was a spur already ending at an at-grade facility. Using these as examples of removal success stories is either unintentionally ignorant or intentionally deceptive.
Removing the waterfront area of I-95 is simple wishful thinking. The same crowd talks in the same manner of windmill farms supplying a majority of the electrical power. Perhaps in the 23rd century with Star Trek technology, but not for the forseeable future.
And, of course, when the I-95 interchange with the PA Turnpike gets past Phase 1, you're REALLY going to see that traffic increase.
She, along with her crew, simply need to deal with it.
Quote from: DeaconG on February 21, 2012, 12:27:18 PM
And, of course, when the I-95 interchange with the PA Turnpike gets past Phase 1, you're REALLY going to see that traffic increase.
She, along with her crew, simply need to deal with it.
Folks going to abandoned I-295/NJ Turnpike once I-95 is connected to the PA Turnpike? I doubt traffic is going to increase any more through Philly than its already at once that interchange is completed.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on February 21, 2012, 07:42:19 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on February 21, 2012, 12:27:18 PM
And, of course, when the I-95 interchange with the PA Turnpike gets past Phase 1, you're REALLY going to see that traffic increase.
She, along with her crew, simply need to deal with it.
Folks going to abandoned I-295/NJ Turnpike once I-95 is connected to the PA Turnpike? I doubt traffic is going to increase any more through Philly than its already at once that interchange is completed.
Probably not, but the completed link will certainly increase the regional and national importance of I-95 in Philadelphia.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on February 21, 2012, 07:42:19 PM
Folks going to abandoned I-295/NJ Turnpike once I-95 is connected to the PA Turnpike? I doubt traffic is going to increase any more through Philly than its already at once that interchange is completed.
I'd imagine there would be quite a few people who'd forsake the Del Mem Br, especially during periods of heavy traffic.
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2012, 10:09:35 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on February 21, 2012, 07:42:19 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on February 21, 2012, 12:27:18 PM
And, of course, when the I-95 interchange with the PA Turnpike gets past Phase 1, you're REALLY going to see that traffic increase.
She, along with her crew, simply need to deal with it.
Folks going to abandoned I-295/NJ Turnpike once I-95 is connected to the PA Turnpike? I doubt traffic is going to increase any more through Philly than its already at once that interchange is completed.
Probably not, but the completed link will certainly increase the regional and national importance of I-95 in Philadelphia.
Most non-road geeks think that the NJTP is I-95 anyway. They will follow what their GPS says blindly, however there are some that wouls stay with the 95 number. Going SB it has never been real obvious that 95 went away from the NJTP. All the sudden the cardinal direction just says TO instead of NORTH or SOUTH
Quote from: jwolfer on February 22, 2012, 01:25:15 PM
Most non-road geeks think that the NJTP is I-95 anyway. They will follow what their GPS says blindly, however there are some that wouls stay with the 95 number. Going SB it has never been real obvious that 95 went away from the NJTP. All the sudden the cardinal direction just says TO instead of NORTH or SOUTH
All northbound traffic bound for NYC/NNJ is going to stick to the Turnpike/I-295. Southbound traffic will be more likely to follow I-95 when its done. The Del Mem Br may be backed up a few days a year, but its still better then I-95 through Philly on most days.
Quote from: jwolfer on February 22, 2012, 01:25:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2012, 10:09:35 PM
Probably not, but the completed link will certainly increase the regional and national importance of I-95 in Philadelphia.
Most non-road geeks think that the NJTP is I-95 anyway. They will follow what their GPS says blindly, however there are some that wouls stay with the 95 number. Going SB it has never been real obvious that 95 went away from the NJTP. All the sudden the cardinal direction just says TO instead of NORTH or SOUTH
I said "increase the regional and national importance of I-95 in Philadelphia." It certainly will increase in importance when there is a continuous I-95 northward from Philadelphia into New Jersey and toward New York City and beyond.
Mainly there will be increased traffic from people going between the Delaware valley (Wilmington to Trenton) and points north. Currently there is no freeway link, so opening one will get people off US-1, US-130 and the like, which I think is the point.
Quote from: MrDisco99 on February 22, 2012, 10:56:03 PM
Mainly there will be increased traffic from people going between the Delaware valley (Wilmington to Trenton) and points north. Currently there is no freeway link, so opening one will get people off US-1, US-130 and the like, which I think is the point.
I doubt it. Additional traffic thru Centre City Philly on I-95. very unlikely
Further you do realize I-95 thru Bucks Co, PA, north of the PA Tpk is unlikely to every be widened.
Also the toll on the new Scudders Falls Br will probably be the same or higher then the Del Mem Br
Most people coming from the south are going to keep doing what they have been doing. Over the Del Mem Br and up either the NJ Tpk or I-295 depending on the time of day
The only people likely to use the new ic are locals from NE Phila and Bucks Co. It will be a much better way for them to get to the NJTP. US 130, and generally across the Del R
The best thing about its const is the reconst of the PA Tpk east of US 1 and the possibility of a new
Del R X-ing some where in the future
Here is some history you might be interested in
http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/I-895_NJ/
Quote from: MrDisco99 on February 22, 2012, 10:56:03 PM
Mainly there will be increased traffic from people going between the Delaware valley (Wilmington to Trenton) and points north. Currently there is no freeway link, so opening one will get people off US-1, US-130 and the like, which I think is the point.
Wouldn't Philadelphia get the same effect if New Jersey were to resign I-195 (between the NJTpk and I-295) and I-295 north as I-95?
^^^
From a practical point of view, yes. But, politically, no. That is because it would still be in New Jersey!
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on February 23, 2012, 12:55:47 AM
Quote from: MrDisco99 on February 22, 2012, 10:56:03 PM
Mainly there will be increased traffic from people going between the Delaware valley (Wilmington to Trenton) and points north. Currently there is no freeway link, so opening one will get people off US-1, US-130 and the like, which I think is the point.
Wouldn't Philadelphia get the same effect if New Jersey were to resign I-195 (between the NJTpk and I-295) and I-295 north as I-95?
Yes, but there needs to be an interchange between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Delaware Expressway anyway, and given that the interchange is going to happen (at long last, after plenty of stalling by PennDOT and the PTC), it makes sense to re-route I-95 as per plans adopted by the FHWA, PennDOT, PTC and the NJTA.
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 12:50:55 AMFurther you do realize I-95 thru Bucks Co, PA, north of the PA Tpk is unlikely to every be widened.
Unlikely? Very likely, actually. The plan for the Scudders Falls Bridge replacement project includes adding a third lane (into the median) from the Turnpike north to the Delaware River.
Project home page: http://scudderfallsbridge.com/
Widening shown here (scroll down to Segment 1): http://scudderfallsbridge.com/preferred.htm
Quote from: qguy on February 23, 2012, 11:05:45 AM
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 12:50:55 AMFurther you do realize I-95 thru Bucks Co, PA, north of the PA Tpk is unlikely to every be widened.
Unlikely? Very likely, actually. The plan for the Scudders Falls Bridge replacement project includes adding a third lane (into the median) from the Turnpike north to the Delaware River.
Project home page: http://scudderfallsbridge.com/
Widening shown here (scroll down to Segment 1): http://scudderfallsbridge.com/preferred.htm
Better look again, the Authority's widening only goes to PA 332
Also, there is nothing in the PENNDOT 12 year plan
Plus add in plenty of Bucks Co NIMBYism
and you get "unlikely"
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 12:50:55 AMThe only people likely to use the new ic are locals from NE Phila and Bucks Co. It will be a much better way for them to get to the NJTP. US 130, and generally across the Del R
Let's not forget Delaware County and the Philadelphia International Airport as well; I certainly won't. Especially since I, for one, WILL definitely use it for my return trips from New England during the holiday weekends.
At present, my toll rate using NJTP south to Exit 6 (from Exit 11), the PATP to Exit 358 (US 13), US 13 to PA 413 and PA 413 to I-95 is actually CHEAPER than getting off the NJTP sooner at Exit 7A (I-195), then I-195 to I-295, I-295 to I-76 and I-76 to I-95. The toll on the Walt Whitman being the proverbial deal-breaker toll-wise. Note: I used the latest CASH toll rates for comparison.
While I could use 195/295/95 via the Scudder Falls to save more toll money; driving that northern loop is an extra 26 miles vs. using the 2 Turnpikes and it's not like I'm approaching that area during the morning rush hours.
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 12:50:55 AMThe best thing about its const is the reconst of the PA Tpk east of US 1 and the possibility of a new Del R X-ing some where in the future
IIRC, as part of the new Turnpike interchange project; a parallel bridge to the Turnpike Bridge will indeed be constucted. When completed, the total number of lanes at will double to 8 lanes (4 per bridge) vs. the current 4.
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 12:50:55 AMAlso the toll on the new Scudders Falls Br will probably be the same or higher then the Del Mem Br
Given that the bridge will be tolled by the Delaware River Joint Toll Commission (DRJTC), the toll will be the same as the not-too-far-away Trenton Toll Bridge (US 1). Current toll on that bridge is $1 southbound only.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2012, 05:33:56 PM
While I could use 195/295/95 via the Scudder Falls to save more toll money; driving that northern loop is an extra 26 miles vs. using the 2 Turnpikes and it's not like I'm approaching that area during the morning rush hours.
Heading towards Philly, is it difficult to try 195 west to 29 north, then 1 south to reach I-95? It's less distance than looping entirely on 295/95, though probably slower to drive through Trenton.
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 03:16:50 PMBetter look again, the Authority's widening only goes to PA 332
Also, there is nothing in the PENNDOT 12 year plan
Plus add in plenty of Bucks Co NIMBYism
and you get "unlikely"
Perhaps you're right. You really won't get an arguement from me. I'm done predicting ANYthing actually being built in Pennsylvania anymore. There have been so many false starts and cancelled projects–even after progressing to a preferred alternative everyone seems willing to live with. I'm to the point that I'm actually surprised when something long-anticipated actually gets constructed.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 23, 2012, 05:40:28 PMHeading towards Philly, is it difficult to try 195 west to 29 north, then 1 south to reach I-95? It's less distance than looping entirely on 295/95, though probably slower to drive through Trenton.
I think you just answered your own question.
I did try 29 North (from I-195) to I-95 (to avoid the toll) once but didn't like the slower traffic on 29 once I reached Trenton.
IMO, when the PA Tnpk/I-95 interchange opens, the people who are going to use it the most would be:
- people living in the Phila and Lower Bucks County area who want to head to NYC. Currently, there are no freeway options to do that, you have to either take back roads to a PA Tnpk or NJ Tnpk interchange
- People from N Jersey and north, or DE and south, who want to avoid the NJTP tolls Exit 1-6, who also don't want to deal with back roads. That could be done today using I-295 & I-195.
I don't think there's going to be a massive increase in I-95 Phila traffic...just an easing of burden off local roads.
BUT still...to remove I-95 in Phila, and displacing 100K ADT into the existing local road network, or even I-676 and I-76, isn't happening either.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on February 23, 2012, 07:04:28 PM...to remove I-95 in Phila, and displacing 100K ADT into the existing local road network, or even I-676 and I-76, isn't happening...
This is the big takeaway that those with airy-fairy dreams of removing I-95 along the waterfront just don't get or for whatever reason willfully ignore.
Removing 95 through Center City has about the same chance of happening as tolls being put on 80.
Much of this discussion reminds me of the "8664" idiots in Louisville.
Quote from: PAHighways on February 23, 2012, 08:04:24 PM
Removing 95 through Center City has about the same chance of happening as tolls being put on 80.
I hate to disagree with you, and I know this is a different subj, but I would give tolls on I-80, at some future point better then 50-50.
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 09:25:32 PM
I hate to disagree with you, and I know this is a different subj, but I would give tolls on I-80, at some future point better then 50-50.
Not unless:
1.) The feds authorize more slots for tolling existing interstates, and
2.) Pennsylvania backs off its plans to spend the money elsewhere besides maintenance and improvements on I-80 itself.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2012, 05:33:56 PM
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 12:50:55 AMThe only people likely to use the new ic are locals from NE Phila and Bucks Co. It will be a much better way for them to get to the NJTP. US 130, and generally across the Del R
Let's not forget Delaware County and the Philadelphia International Airport as well; I certainly won't. Especially since I, for one, WILL definitely use it for my return trips from New England during the holiday weekends.
Is this your way of avoiding the NJTPK traffic, because if so the 6-9 widening will be long completed before the new 95-pa tpk ic is done?
At present, my toll rate using NJTP south to Exit 6 (from Exit 11), the PATP to Exit 358 (US 13), US 13 to PA 413 and PA 413 to I-95 is actually CHEAPER than getting off the NJTP sooner at Exit 7A (I-195), then I-195 to I-295, I-295 to I-76 and I-76 to I-95. The toll on the Walt Whitman being the proverbial deal-breaker toll-wise. Note: I used the latest CASH toll rates for comparison.
While I could use 195/295/95 via the Scudder Falls to save more toll money; driving that northern loop is an extra 26 miles vs. using the 2 Turnpikes and it's not like I'm approaching that area during the morning rush hours.
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 12:50:55 AMThe best thing about its const is the reconst of the PA Tpk east of US 1 and the possibility of a new Del R X-ing some where in the future
IIRC, as part of the new Turnpike interchange project; a parallel bridge to the Turnpike Bridge will indeed be constucted. When completed, the total number of lanes at will double to 8 lanes (4 per bridge) vs. the current 4.
I have not looked at the website in a while, but hasn't the const of a new Del R Br been removed and set at a future date to be determined later, or something similar?
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 12:50:55 AMAlso the toll on the new Scudders Falls Br will probably be the same or higher then the Del Mem Br
Given that the bridge will be tolled by the Delaware River Joint Toll Commission (DRJTC), the toll will be the same as the not-too-far-away Trenton Toll Bridge (US 1). Current toll on that bridge is $1 southbound only.
no, I believe that is one of the things being discussed. I believe by the time this is done, given the high cost, it will be probably the same as the DRPA brs
Quote from: hbelkins on February 23, 2012, 09:28:37 PM
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 09:25:32 PM
I hate to disagree with you, and I know this is a different subj, but I would give tolls on I-80, at some future point better then 50-50.
Not unless:
1.) The feds authorize more slots for tolling existing interstates, and
2.) Pennsylvania backs off its plans to spend the money elsewhere besides maintenance and improvements on I-80 itself.
IMHO #1 is very likely to happen, given The Congress unwillingness to raise the gas tax
RE #2: Also IMHO give PA registered vehicles free passes, wich is very easy with EZ pass, and opposition drops quite a bit
Quote from: qguy on February 21, 2012, 11:42:50 AMThis isn't an issue with a need for additional land. No one really wants to build over it; they want to get around it.
Forgive the long post here but as a longtime Philadelphia resident, allow me to explain some of the context.
The critics are right in one way: describing the current problem. The highway does cut the city off from its waterfront. You have to see the area from a cross-sectional perspective to really understand that.
Even if I-95 were to be covered along its entire length through the area, it wouldn't really solve the problem. This is because there is an elevation differential between the edge of the current street grid (mostly along Front St.) and the level of Delaware Ave./Columbus Blvd. and the piers. I-95 cuts through at an elevation that is right in the middle of that.
Along the most desired portion, centered around Market St., I-95 was depressed just low enough that there's no way to tunnel under it, but it is still high enough that the level atop a cover is higher than the street grid and much higher than the level of Delaware Ave./Columbus Blvd. and the piers. But the distance from the highway and cover to the waterfront is very short. So there's no good way to walk, drive, or use transit from atop the cover down to the waterfront. It would always need an elaborate way to overcome the elevation change in so short a distance.
So, yes, the presence of I-95 right where it is, at that intermediate level, is not just problemmatic, it's maddening. It's not high enough to go under it, but not really low enough to go over it.
And that doesn't even consider the huge number of truly historic and rare (even here in Phila) original 18th & 19th century buildings which were bulldozed for it. That still rankles many here, even today, even among those like me who like roads. (That really is a side issue, but one not to be underestimated.)
I meant to ask you this question earlier. What did that area look like in BOTH plan and elevation PRIOR to I-95 being there? Did the streets that currently end on Front continue in a steep downhill to Columbus Blvd. (old Delaware Ave.)? Something tells me that elevation differential existed prior to I-95 or even Columbus Blvd. being there. Given the water elevation of the river and the elevation of Front Street; prior to the waterfront being expanded to include Columbus Blvd. did Front Street 'cliff' the waterfront back in a day?
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 09:52:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 23, 2012, 09:28:37 PM
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 09:25:32 PM
I hate to disagree with you, and I know this is a different subj, but I would give tolls on I-80, at some future point better then 50-50.
Not unless:
1.) The feds authorize more slots for tolling existing interstates, and
2.) Pennsylvania backs off its plans to spend the money elsewhere besides maintenance and improvements on I-80 itself.
IMHO #1 is very likely to happen, given The Congress unwillingness to raise the gas tax
RE #2: Also IMHO give PA registered vehicles free passes, wich is very easy with EZ pass, and opposition drops quite a bit
Even if the Feds allow more tolling slots for Interstates tomorrow; initiatives to place tolls on I-80 would
STILL be shot down unless PA
promises in writing that
ALL toll revenues generated will specifically be devoted and spent on only I-80. PA's unwillingness to make that promise was why
the initiative was shot down THREE times already and under 2 different federal administrations.
As far as giving PA residents free or a discounted toll rate; don't count on it. Tolling I-80 was just a masceraded
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul shake-down effort; nothing else.
Here's a link to a description of a discussion forum that was held here in Philadelphia last night: http://planphilly.com/kicking-around-city%E2%80%99s-future-options-i-95
See for yourself some of the fantasy world some people live in. :rolleyes:
Hey, if Robert Moses could get his fantasy built, anything is possible.
Quote from: NE2 on February 24, 2012, 12:51:44 PM
Hey, if Robert Moses could get his fantasy built, anything is possible.
I doubt that Moses would have been able to build as much if he had to deal with environmental impact statements, air quality conformity determinations, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Clean Water Act.
Quote from: qguy on February 24, 2012, 12:46:08 PM
I'm not sure if you commented in the other thread in the
Meets section but how did that meeting actually go? I got out of work a bit too late from work.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 24, 2012, 01:12:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 24, 2012, 12:51:44 PM
Hey, if Robert Moses could get his fantasy built, anything is possible.
I doubt that Moses would have been able to build as much if he had to deal with environmental impact statements, air quality conformity determinations, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Clean Water Act.
Too bad he wasn't born (I wrote built at first, heh) 50 years later.
Even if the Feds allow more tolling slots for Interstates tomorrow; initiatives to place tolls on I-80 would STILL be shot down unless PA promises in writing that ALL toll revenues generated will specifically be devoted and spent on only I-80. PA's unwillingness to make that promise was why the initiative was shot down THREE times already and under 2 different federal administrations.
As far as giving PA residents free or a discounted toll rate; don't count on it. Tolling I-80 was just a masceraded Robbing Peter to Pay Paul shake-down effort; nothing else.
There is a new highway bill coming thru. Whether you like it or not, there is going to be alot of new tolling applications. Because the Congress is so unwilling to raise the gas tax
This may come as a shock to you but cities like Philadelphia contributed much, much more to building the rural interstates then locals did
IMHO it will be approved eventually
Quote from: sammack on February 24, 2012, 06:16:16 PMThere is a new highway bill coming thru. Whether you like it or not, there is going to be alot of new tolling applications. Because the Congress is so unwilling to raise the gas tax
This may come as a shock to you but cities like Philadelphia contributed much, much more to building the rural interstates then locals did
IMHO it will be approved eventually
I will say this once again. The intent of Act 44, in a nutshell, was to raise revenue via tolls on the PA turnpike roads as well as the aborted I-80 toll effort for
ALL transportation projects not just for those particular roads and not even roads for that matter. The intent of placing tolls on an Interstate freeway can only be done on the condition that the toll revenue generated from that source be spent ONLY for that particular highway. PA and PennDOT KNEW that from the get-go.
Once folks along the I-80 corridor caught wind of that particular piece of Act 44, they said
No way! They did NOT want their I-80 toll money going to a mass transit system (SEPTA) in Philly that they're NEVER EVER going to use.
As far as a new highway bill coming through involving more tolling applications is concerned; the number one question that EVERYBODY should be asking their government is
WHERE DID ALL THAT STIMULUS MONEY ($750 Billion) GO? From what I've heard, only $25 billion or so of that money (the equivalent of 2 Big Dig projects) has actually been spent for transportation improvements nationwide currently; that's
LESS THAN 4%. The cleanest word I can describe the above is CRIMINAL.
Please understand that while people, in general, are supportive of transportation spending and are willing to pay more as necessary; they are NOT supportive of the government MISUSING those funds for items other than their intended purpose.
Given their (government) track record with the stimulus money; the people have every right to hold their congressman's feet to the fire in regards to asking for even more money.
If gas prices weren't skyrocketing
again; maybe a modest increase in the gas tax could actually be done. But right now, I don't see it. If it were to increase; I would almost say set the amount to a percentage of the wholesale price of gas rather than just a flat amount. That way when prices go up, more money will automatically come in. Note: a flat minimum amount would need to be placed in case prices fall lower.
Massachusetts tried such a method w/their state gas tax during the early 80s (King Administration) but they forgot to state a flat minimum amount in case prices took a dive... which it did during the mid 80s. As a result of that unintended revenue shortfall, the Dukakis Administration replaced the percentage-based gas tax with a flat amount gas tax.
Maybe changes to percentage-based federal gas tax w/a flat minimum is the way to go. Personally, the federal gas tax that originally funded the Interstate highway system should've been percentage-based from the get-go. Even before the first oil-price shock of 1973; the federal 4 cents-a-gallon gas tax didn't go as far as it did in the late 50s.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 24, 2012, 07:35:31 PM
As far as a new highway bill coming through involving more tolling applications is concerned; the number one question that EVERYBODY should be asking their government is WHERE DID ALL THAT STIMULUS MONEY ($750 Billion) GO? From what I've heard, only $25 billion or so of that money (the equivalent of 2 Big Dig projects) has actually been spent for transportation improvements nationwide currently; that's LESS THAN 4%. The cleanest word I can describe the above is CRIMINAL.
Ron Paul declared the other 96% to be worthless fiat money.
(Duh, the stimulus was not just for transportation.)
I've encountered a couple projects where buildings were using ARRA money to change their lights out to be more energy efficient.
As stated, it wasn't all transportation.
Given their (government) track record with the stimulus money; the people have every right to hold their congressman's feet to the fire in regards to asking for even more money.
If gas prices weren't skyrocketing again; maybe a modest increase in the gas tax could actually be done. But right now, I don't see it. If it were to increase; I would almost say set the amount to a percentage of the wholesale price of gas rather than just a flat amount. That way when prices go up, more money will automatically come in. Note: a flat minimum amount would need to be placed in case prices fall lower
As others have said, stimulus $ was not dedicated to transportation 100%
Also and especially given the gas price situation any fuel tax inc is pretty much dead
Given the critical needs of all transportation, that is the reason I say tolling PA I-80 better the 50%
This is a little off topic, but the sad thing in PA's attempt to toll I-80, is that some of the toll money was to be used to upgrade and rehab I-80 across the state, which major bridge replacements, interchange upgrades, etc. There's enough work needed on I-80 that they could have said the tolls would be used for I-80, and then redirect the general PennDOT funding set aside for I-80 to other places.
One place where toll funding was going to be used: major upgrades and possible widening from I-380 east to the NJ line.
Forgive me for asking, but, uh, how did this thread about calls to remove I-95 through Philadelphia become a debate about tolling I-80?
Quote from: sammack on February 23, 2012, 09:25:32 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on February 23, 2012, 08:04:24 PM
Removing 95 through Center City has about the same chance of happening as tolls being put on 80.
I hate to disagree with you, and I know this is a different subj, but I would give tolls on I-80, at some future point better then 50-50.
Tolling 80 has been discussed as long as it has been opened, and 42 years later, the only toll plaza on it is still at the Delaware Water Gap Bridge. Something tells me talk of putting tolls on 80 will keep coming up for the next 42 years with the same result as the past 42.
Quote from: qguy on February 25, 2012, 01:27:44 PMForgive me for asking, but, uh, how did this thread about calls to remove I-95 through Philadelphia become a debate about tolling I-80?
It's because I said this:
Quote from: PAHighways on February 23, 2012, 08:04:24 PMRemoving 95 through Center City has about the same chance of happening as tolls being put on 80.
All this fuss for the little roadway pictured here? Sheesh! :)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg41.imageshack.us%2Fimg41%2F7730%2F027bb.jpg&hash=cf8421dafcb6eaef66409590c10fa7c26d354bf1) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/41/027bb.jpg/)
No more so than this little freeway
http://g.co/maps/gavxk
^Touche!
First off...the 2009 stimulus package was not just transportation, and the limitation that only "shovel-ready" projects get preference greatly reduced the amount that went towards transportation projects. Of course, there were some of us who thought that the stim was still way too small and that a much bigger bang was needed...but that's only us.
If I understand the rules correctly, even if the feds were going to approve tolling I-80 in Pennsylvania, the condition that any revenue being generated would go strictly to improvements on that highway would override any move to divert funding to other means (such as Philly mass transit).
I don't really think that most Americans are so opposed to a modest increase in the gas tax if it is used for serious construction of infrastructure. Of course, libertarian conservatives are opposed to public infrastructure to begin with, and the more Tea Party-oriented Republicans (and overly green-shaded Democrats) would for their own reasons want to see transportation funding diverted to other purposes than public highways. Let's see how the transportation bill evolves before making any conclusions.
Anthony
Here's another article that covers last Thursday's meeting on the I-95/waterfront subject:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/140389163.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/140389163.html)
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 27, 2012, 04:12:24 PM
If I understand the rules correctly, even if the feds were going to approve tolling I-80 in Pennsylvania, the condition that any revenue being generated would go strictly to improvements on that highway would override any move to divert funding to other means (such as Philly mass transit).
You are absolutely correct.
Pennsylvania's plan was to toll I-80, then divert most of the resulting revenues to PennDOT to (in turn) be used for highway projects having
nothing to do with I-80 - and a large chunk of money was to be handed over to SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) (and perhaps smaller Pennsylvania transit operators as well) to pay unionized transit workers (all of which also had
nothing to do with I-80).
Like it or not, that's against the federal rules.
QuoteI don't really think that most Americans are so opposed to a modest increase in the gas tax if it is used for serious construction of infrastructure. Of course, libertarian conservatives are opposed to public infrastructure to begin with, and the more Tea Party-oriented Republicans (and overly green-shaded Democrats) would for their own reasons want to see transportation funding diverted to other purposes than public highways. Let's see how the transportation bill evolves before making any conclusions.
There are many that would like to see highways turned-over to the private sector entirely, or at least in the form of long-term concession agreements, like Indiana did with its Toll Roadl Chicago did with the Skyway and Ontario did with Highway 407 - and what France routinely does with large sections of its
Autoroute network.
But frequently the very same Republicans that want this sort of thing (and in particular, no increase in motor fuel taxes) get very upset at the tolls that the private-sector highway operators charge. My exhibit A is Va. 267, the Dulles Greenway, in Loudoun County, Virginia. Many Republican elected officials have bitched and moaned about the tolls that the (private) concession owner charges drivers to use this road.
Here's a link to one of the more thoughtful (if still rather parochial) local articles I've seen on the topic, posted today. It seems as if no one, even any of the the reps from city hall, is thinking regionally. But that's certainly Philadelphia.
http://planphilly.com/eyesonthestreet/2012/02/28/on-beyond-i-95-nothing-lasts-forever/
Feel free to leave comments at the article.