Pulaski Highway - PA 90 (73?)

[route_82]

Just started a new job, and I must say that I've unearthed a treasure trove of historical documentation.  In my first couple days while going over the Allegheny section of the I-95 improvement I found significant evidence of the proposed and subsequently killed Pulaski Highway.
Of all of Philadelphia's canceled highways, this was probably the most critical link that would have dramatically cut congestion along the Vine Expressway (I-676) and the Schuylkill Expressway (I-76), as well as I-95.

Here are just a few of the choice pictures I got of what I saw:


--- Philadelphia regional network, including PA 90. (red lines are corridors for I-476)


--- Tax map, labeling Pulaski Interchange with I-95.


--- Ramps for Delair Bridge, and ROW for Pulaski Highway.


--- Layout of Pulaski Highway & I-95.


--- Curiously, this diagram labels Pulaski Highway as heading for Conshohocken.


--- Interestingly, this set of plans labels the Pulaski Highway as PA 73.  Might there been a planned reroute? Pre-PA 90? If continued to Cheltenhem Ave & Route 309, Pulaski Highway could have relinked with existing PA 73. (Love the three I-95 shields) ^_^


--- Clear visuals of Pulaski Highway as a *new* PA 73

More highway treasures to come.  Enjoy! And please, share your thoughts. 

[Beltway]

Huge benefits from a traffic engineering standpoint, but huge impacts from a right-of-way acquisition standpoint (the number of dwelling units and businesses) and from an environmental impact standpoint (Tacony Creek valley and wetlands).

[Roadsguy]

Okay, I knew all about this (including the fact that it wouldn't have connected to 309 ), but I didn't know about 73. A reroute would be kinda logical. NJ 90 feeds right into 73, but I can't say the same for the other end. Ditching NJ 90 and making the whole thing PA/NJ 309, using Cheltenham east of 611, would make more sense. And if I-97 could survive and not turn into MD 97, then US 309, especially now since it'd be multi-state, could be brought back, even though it's way shorter than 300(500?) miles.

But about that map: I thought 1 would've hijacked 76 down to 695, and rode that over to the Lansdowne-695 split. Was there a plan-change, or was this the original plan? Also, 95 goes clear through what is now the airport, and 291 rides the current 95 alignment, and it and 695 would meet 95 at one point. Another plan change, for sure. And the Surekill is shown also as PA 43. I knew it was that, but was it still that when it was signed as I-76? And I don't think an extremely overkill expressway network for the area west of Philly could all be designated I-476.

I also spy 422 going into Philly, and the US 309 and US 611 shields.

[Alex]

I recall the three sets of I-95 down arrow signs in Northeast Philadelphia. They were button copy originally, and a set were carbon copied before they were replaced with a standard pull through panel by 2004:



12/23/01 photo.

If I can get some of my old VHS videos converted, I can share some night time footage of I-95 with the three button copy signs still in place and the flyover stubs ending mid-air at the Aramingo Avenue stack interchange. Also have at least two videos around Trenton, one showing I-295 ending at I-195, and another with the "formerly exit" sign amendments for the I-295 numbering west of US 1. Several of the things that PHLBOS posts about in the Philly area comes to mind with what Cary Todd and I videotaped in 1993/94.

[PHLBOS]

I recall the three sets of I-95 down arrow signs in Northeast Philadelphia. They were button copy originally, and a set were carbon copied before they were replaced with a standard pull through panel by 2004:



12/23/01 photo.

IIRC, when the old/original BGS were there; PennDOT had several blank BGS panels for what would have been the Pulaski (originally Tacony) Expressway.  Thanks for the regional credit BTW. 

I was never quite sure why PennDOT tore down the 3 separate pull-through panels for I-95 and replaced it with one wide board.  When it came time to replace the southbound ones; PennDOT could've just copied the old format.  For replacements (outside of the old match in kind), I would've done a more standard pull-through showing arrows per lane and 1 or 2-line control destinations.

While I was aware that the Expressway was envisioned to be an extension of Route 90; I was not aware of it possibly being a relocation of PA 73.  Maybe this notation was due to the fact that Route 90 already exists in PA (though at the opposite corner of the state) as I-90.

Very good find, route-82.

[NE2]

PA 90 was apparently not an official designation:

Unofficial maps published the era showed the Pulaski Expressway with the PA 90 designation, continuing the route's NJ 90 designation from New Jersey, but official maps showed no such designation. Official planning reports referred to the route as "LR 1078."

[route_82]

While I was aware that the Expressway was envisioned to be an extension of Route 90; I was not aware of it possibly being a relocation of PA 73.  Maybe this notation was due to the fact that Route 90 already exists in PA (though at the opposite corner of the state) as I-90.

Very good find, route-82.

Thanks! I was in awe looking at this stuff, I kept digging for more

I think making it PA 73 makes sense, although probably a 95 spur would be ideal.
As for the impact it would have had, there are ways to mitigate it.  But as it stands, there is no good way to get across that area, you are stuck going through city streets with light after light after light.  This highway would have been a major major artery for the area.  It certainly would have relieved the Vine Expressway as a shortcut to I-76 and or Route 1.

[Roadsguy]

Oh, tell me about it. Just connect it to the Roosevelt Expressway for an easy bypass of downtown for those wanting to get from areas on 95 to those on the Surekill around, say, Conshohocken. Though it'd have been most useful connected to 309, as I said above. That would've originally come down to the Girard Ave. interchange, but that would probably never have been built even without the Highway Massacre.

[Alps]

PA 90 is an actual route from another part of the state (pre I-90). Steve Anderson has this expressway as future 90, but clearly it was meant to be future 73 at least at some point. I can't imagine how it was supposed to get to Conshohocken without another dashed line going around the top of Philly as a middle bypass.

[qguy]

[I-]95 goes clear through what is now the airport...

I-95 was originally to have passed to the south of the Philadelphia International Airport, hard by the Delaware River. I-95's Girard Point Bridge (across the Schuylkill River) was built early on (and not connected to its approaches) but not used for quite some time. That's why it's situated at a sort of awkward angle relative to the current alignment of I-95 around the north side of the airport immediately south of the bridge. Driving southbound across the bridge, you can see how it "wants" to point the highway to the south side of the airport. So the roadway is forced to swing widely to the right, then widely to the left (as you drive southbound) in a huge S-curve.

I remember riding with my family across the Platt Bridge (PA 291), just upstream from the Girard Point Bridge back in the mid-70s. From the top of the bridge, one could look across to the southeast and see the unconnected Girard Point Bridge just kinda sitting over there. "They built it in the wrong place," was how my father expressed it. Not precisely accurate, but that's probably how the newspapers described it.

[route_82]

That is very interesting, I never thought much about that when driving over the Girard Pointe Bridge.

I would really like to show more of what I found at work, but I have been informed by someone that perhaps it would be a violation of trust with my new job that I am sharing their intellectual property online without their permission.
Granted, these things I am interested in sharing are from the 60's and 70's, long since buried by the firm.

I wouldn't think of sharing present day proposals I have seen while at the company because they are ongoing and such...

But many of these ideas, such as the Pulaski Highway and Blue Route have long since been settled, and are in no way likely to ever have relevancy to anyone but us highway nerds. 

What does everyone else think about this?

I'd like to share what else I've found... but not sure now. 

[hbelkins]

That is very interesting, I never thought much about that when driving over the Girard Pointe Bridge.

I would really like to show more of what I found at work, but I have been informed by someone that perhaps it would be a violation of trust with my new job that I am sharing their intellectual property online without their permission.
Granted, these things I am interested in sharing are from the 60's and 70's, long since buried by the firm.

I would think that if these drawings were done for a public agency, then they are the property of the public agency and thus would be considered public documents. My guess is the same documents are on file somewhere at the agencies they were drawn up for.

[route_82]

That is very interesting, I never thought much about that when driving over the Girard Pointe Bridge.

I would really like to show more of what I found at work, but I have been informed by someone that perhaps it would be a violation of trust with my new job that I am sharing their intellectual property online without their permission.
Granted, these things I am interested in sharing are from the 60's and 70's, long since buried by the firm.

I would think that if these drawings were done for a public agency, then they are the property of the public agency and thus would be considered public documents. My guess is the same documents are on file somewhere at the agencies they were drawn up for.

Well yes, Blue Route and Pulaski Highway were public highways.  But I'm not reviewing these from PennDOT.

[hbelkins]

That is very interesting, I never thought much about that when driving over the Girard Pointe Bridge.

I would really like to show more of what I found at work, but I have been informed by someone that perhaps it would be a violation of trust with my new job that I am sharing their intellectual property online without their permission.
Granted, these things I am interested in sharing are from the 60's and 70's, long since buried by the firm.

I would think that if these drawings were done for a public agency, then they are the property of the public agency and thus would be considered public documents. My guess is the same documents are on file somewhere at the agencies they were drawn up for.

Well yes, Blue Route and Pulaski Highway were public highways.  But I'm not reviewing these from PennDOT.

Still shouldn't make any difference, I wouldn't think. They are copies of documents that would be available via an open records request from PennDOT.

[Henry]

While I was aware that the Expressway was envisioned to be an extension of Route 90; I was not aware of it possibly being a relocation of PA 73.  Maybe this notation was due to the fact that Route 90 already exists in PA (though at the opposite corner of the state) as I-90.

Very good find, route-82.

Thanks! I was in awe looking at this stuff, I kept digging for more

I think making it PA 73 makes sense, although probably a 95 spur would be ideal.
As for the impact it would have had, there are ways to mitigate it.  But as it stands, there is no good way to get across that area, you are stuck going through city streets with light after light after light.  This highway would have been a major major artery for the area.  It certainly would have relieved the Vine Expressway as a shortcut to I-76 and or Route 1.

Building the Crosstown Expressway would've been overkill, due to its proximity to I-676 (former I-76), not to mention I-695's unlucky location further west along Cobbs Creek. And why they didn't connect the Pulaski Highway to PA 309, I can't quite figure out. At the very least, it would've provided a continuous expressway route through the northern parts of the city, similar to how I-95 does the eastern and southern parts. Alas, we'll never know for sure.

[route_82]

While I was aware that the Expressway was envisioned to be an extension of Route 90; I was not aware of it possibly being a relocation of PA 73.  Maybe this notation was due to the fact that Route 90 already exists in PA (though at the opposite corner of the state) as I-90.

Very good find, route-82.

Thanks! I was in awe looking at this stuff, I kept digging for more

I think making it PA 73 makes sense, although probably a 95 spur would be ideal.
As for the impact it would have had, there are ways to mitigate it.  But as it stands, there is no good way to get across that area, you are stuck going through city streets with light after light after light.  This highway would have been a major major artery for the area.  It certainly would have relieved the Vine Expressway as a shortcut to I-76 and or Route 1.

Building the Crosstown Expressway would've been overkill, due to its proximity to I-676 (former I-76), not to mention I-695's unlucky location further west along Cobbs Creek. And why they didn't connect the Pulaski Highway to PA 309, I can't quite figure out. At the very least, it would've provided a continuous expressway route through the northern parts of the city, similar to how I-95 does the eastern and southern parts. Alas, we'll never know for sure.

I agree, I-695 was a doomed expressway.  Going through Washington Ave was a mistake.  It would have been better to just improve I-676.  Why it narrows to 2 lanes each way at Broad is beyond me.  It was really unwise.
Also, Cobbs Creek could have been supplemented by an improved PA 291 as a freeway over the Platt Bridge.  Also, I-76 along the river south of 30th Street is in desperate need of improvement.
30th Street Station doesn't need that many rails anymore.  They are remnants of a bygone era.  I say move I-76 further in or out into the river.  Big $$ project, but it's disgraceful how it is now.

[qguy]

...improve I-676.  Why it narrows to 2 lanes each way at Broad is beyond me.

In a word: cost. By the time they built that portion, the costs had risen so much that they economized on the design. It's the same reason PennDOT didn't build all the movements of the originally planned freeway-to-freeway connection between I-676 (Vine Street Expressway) and I-676 on the Ben Franklin Bridge.

The freeway was completed from the Schuylkill Expressway to 18th St., with three lanes in each direction, in 1959. It was planned to continue the freeway with three lanes directionally all the way to the planned I-95 along the Delaware River, with a full freeway-to-freeway interchange with the BF Bridge. (Indeed, the I-676 designation does continue across the bridge, but local signalized streets must be used to get there from the Vine Street Expressway part of I-676.)

The remainer of the highway wasn't completed (to I-95) until 1991, 32 years after the earlier portion. Because of increased costs parts of the design were scaled back, including that direct connection with the bridge (also influenced by NIMBYism over an historic approach to the bridge). One of the economies was constructing it with only two lanes in either direction, instead of the long-planned three.

The two-lane configuration caused so much congestion within just a few years, however, that the westbound side was restriped to squeeze in a third lane (an auxiliary lane) from the onramp from 8th St. to the offramp to 15 St. (Through that area, there is virtually no shoulder on either side of the westbound lanes.) But yes, there are only two through-lanes.

...Cobbs Creek could have been supplemented by an improved PA 291 as a freeway over the Platt Bridge.

PA 291 was back then planned to be used as the alignment for a freeway called the "Industrial Highway." It would've formed a large Y connecting I-95 at the airport area with the Schulykill Expressway. The stem of the Y would've been the Platt Bridge (PA 291), the left arm would've followed PA 291 along what is now 26th St., and the right arm would've followed Pennrose Ave. That's why when driving north on PA 291 along 26th St., when you get to the Schulykill Expressway (I-76) you can't go eastbound on I-76. And when driving north on Pennrose Ave., when you get to the Schulykill Expressway you can't go westbound on I-76. It's also why there are such large, sweeping ramps at Pennrose and I-76.

[route_82]

...improve I-676.  Why it narrows to 2 lanes each way at Broad is beyond me.

In a word: cost. By the time they built that portion, the costs had risen so much that they economized on the design. It's the same reason PennDOT didn't build all the movements of the originally planned freeway-to-freeway connection between I-676 (Vine Street Expressway) and I-676 on the Ben Franklin Bridge.

The freeway was completed from the Schuylkill Expressway to 18th St., with three lanes in each direction, in 1959. It was planned to continue the freeway with three lanes directionally all the way to the planned I-95 along the Delaware River, with a full freeway-to-freeway interchange with the BF Bridge. (Indeed, the I-676 designation does continue across the bridge, but local signalized streets must be used to get there from the Vine Street Expressway part of I-676.)

The remainer of the highway wasn't completed (to I-95) until 1991, 32 years after the earlier portion. Because of increased costs parts of the design were scaled back, including that direct connection with the bridge (also influenced by NIMBYism over an historic approach to the bridge). One of the economies was constructing it with only two lanes in either direction, instead of the long-planned three.

The two-lane configuration caused so much congestion within just a few years, however, that the westbound side was restriped to squeeze in a third lane (an auxiliary lane) from the onramp from 8th St. to the offramp to 15 St. (Through that area, there is virtually no shoulder on either side of the westbound lanes.) But yes, there are only two through-lanes.

You mean this?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7707.msg175164#msg175164 

I remember reading about all that stuff on Steve Anderson's pages.  It's still just ridiculous though that it went that way.

[Beltway]

…improve I-676.  Why it narrows to 2 lanes each way at Broad is beyond me.

In a word: cost. By the time they built that portion, the costs had risen so much that they economized on the design. It's the same reason PennDOT didn't build all the movements of the originally planned freeway-to-freeway connection between I-676 (Vine Street Expressway) and I-676 on the Ben Franklin Bridge.

Cost was not a major issue, as Interstate construction got 90% federal funding. The reason it was scaled down was to reduce the impacts to Chinatown and to Franklin Square.

[route_82]

...improve I-676.  Why it narrows to 2 lanes each way at Broad is beyond me.

In a word: cost. By the time they built that portion, the costs had risen so much that they economized on the design. It's the same reason PennDOT didn't build all the movements of the originally planned freeway-to-freeway connection between I-676 (Vine Street Expressway) and I-676 on the Ben Franklin Bridge.

Cost was not a major issue, as Interstate construction got 90% federal funding. The reason it was scaled down was to reduce the impacts to Chinatown and to Franklin Square.

NIMBYs!!!!

[qguy]

...improve I-676.  Why it narrows to 2 lanes each way at Broad is beyond me.

In a word: cost. By the time they built that portion, the costs had risen so much that they economized on the design. It's the same reason PennDOT didn't build all the movements of the originally planned freeway-to-freeway connection between I-676 (Vine Street Expressway) and I-676 on the Ben Franklin Bridge.

Cost was not a major issue, as Interstate construction got 90% federal funding. The reason it was scaled down was to reduce the impacts to Chinatown and to Franklin Square.

I should've cited cost and NIMBYism. But cost was a major issue to the feds. And it was all the excuse that PennDOT and the FHWA needed to bow to the NIMBYs.

Funny thing. Everyone mentions the impact to Franklin Square, but relatively minor tweaking would've minimized that while still retaining the full freeway-to-freeway connection. What seems to have really chapped the NIMBYs (in addition to impacts to Chinatown) was the impact to the plaza at the immediate foot of the BF Bridge.

[Beltway]

...improve I-676.  Why it narrows to 2 lanes each way at Broad is beyond me.

In a word: cost. By the time they built that portion, the costs had risen so much that they economized on the design. It's the same reason PennDOT didn't build all the movements of the originally planned freeway-to-freeway connection between I-676 (Vine Street Expressway) and I-676 on the Ben Franklin Bridge.

Cost was not a major issue, as Interstate construction got 90% federal funding. The reason it was scaled down was to reduce the impacts to Chinatown and to Franklin Square.

I should've cited cost and NIMBYism. But cost was a major issue to the feds. And it was all the excuse that PennDOT and the FHWA needed to bow to the NIMBYs.

Funny thing. Everyone mentions the impact to Franklin Square, but relatively minor tweaking would've minimized that while still retaining the full freeway-to-freeway connection. What seems to have really chapped the NIMBYs (in addition to impacts to Chinatown) was the impact to the plaza at the immediate foot of the BF Bridge.

I reviewed the design plans for the original scheme (6-lane I-676 freeway and full freeway interchange with BFB) back in the 1970s, and there wasn't any way to not have major impacts to the Square and to Chinatown.  The various community groups argued those points successfully.

As far as the cost, the amount saved was about 1/10 the cost of the I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore, a 90% FHWA funded project in the same era.  IOW, cost was not an issue on Vine Street.

Hey, I liked the original scheme from a traffic engineering standpoint, but given the impact issues, it was better to downscope it if the alternative was to build nothing.

[route_82]

I should've cited cost and NIMBYism. But cost was a major issue to the feds. And it was all the excuse that PennDOT and the FHWA needed to bow to the NIMBYs.

Funny thing. Everyone mentions the impact to Franklin Square, but relatively minor tweaking would've minimized that while still retaining the full freeway-to-freeway connection. What seems to have really chapped the NIMBYs (in addition to impacts to Chinatown) was the impact to the plaza at the immediate foot of the BF Bridge.

Yea... A plaza that hardly anyone uses.  I think it only gets use when there is an event on the bridge, which isn't very often.

I agree that given appearances up above, the freeway connection would have been quite devastating to the neighborhoods and parks.  But, think of the pollution caused by all the idling cars in traffic now, due to the congestion experienced from the traffic lights. 

They are considering making a new overhead ramp from the bridge to Vine Expwy, but there still won't be a free movement from the Vine Expy to the bridge.  Looking at an aerial, it is entirely possible to do with little impact to the nearby squares.