Inga Saffron Strikes Again Regarding Getting Rid of I-95 near Penns Landing

[mightyace]

^^^

From a practical point of view, yes.  But, politically, no.  That is because it would still be in New Jersey!

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[qguy]

Further 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

[sammack]

Further 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"

[PHLBOS]

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

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.

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

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.

Also 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.

[TheStranger]

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.

[qguy]

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"

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

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.

[jemacedo9]

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.

[qguy]

...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.

[PAHighways]

Removing 95 through Center City has about the same chance of happening as tolls being put on 80.

[hbelkins]

Much of this discussion reminds me of the "8664" idiots in Louisville.

[sammack]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[sammack]

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

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.

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

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?

Also 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

[sammack]

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

[PHLBOS]

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.  

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?

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.

[qguy]

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.

[NE2]

Hey, if Robert Moses could get his fantasy built, anything is possible.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[sammack]

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

[PHLBOS]

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

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.

[NE2]

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.)