Honestly, the website was hard to use, and took a bit of work to find even a few of the options.
I didn't know that they were still building freeways in cities.
While it's within Philly, it's well outside the core city, and would be utilizing existing right-of-way underground. It wouldn't be splitting apart the city as many freeways of the 60's and 70's did.
It's worth noting that the near term recommendations are basically just "plant more trees".
Per the report:
Hazardous condition: 25% of deaths on the Boulevard is hitting fixed objects.
Plan of action: Install more fixed objects.
This study is all over the place. It criticizes the large median, saying the landscaped area should be closer to the outside of the roadway. Yet, the capped freeway design encourages a large median for a park.
In another plan, it basically calls for the 6 thru lanes each way to be narrowed down to 3 thru lanes each way, with 2 inner lanes and 1 outer lane. I don't see how a 50% reduction in lanes here would be helpful to anyone.
It also calls for reduced speed limits. The current limit is a reduction of a former limit, and the new limit was so universally ignored by, on average, 15 - 20 mph, that the city fought to get speed cameras installed.
The Light Rail option calls for the train to be in the middle, with train stations between the inner and outer roadways. Yet, elsewhere it claims that pedestrian refuge areas between the inner and outer roadways are unsafe and not preferred.
The Light Rail option seems to be in a vacuum. Where is the train going to go on either end?
Other options indicate that they want to plant more trees near intersections, for a visual effect of slowing down traffic. Planting more trees near intersections also creates a limited visibility issue, which isn't preferred.
Overall, the Freeway option, which was unfairly jumped on here, seems to be the best option so far. The entire study, for the most part, is made up of issues, then solutions that directly conflict with those issues.