If I-95 were to go, would it be the first highway ever to go? (Philadelphia: houses, neighborhoods)

[Tiger Beer]

Hey Hey, Ho Ho, I-95 Has Got to Go | The Philly Post

This is from the Philadelphia 2035 thread.

Very interesting about this highway. It sounds like it won't be going anywhere. But interesting that there is a discussion about it, and someone is strongly being vocal about it.

Just the idea they are discussing it, shows a long-sightedness to sustainability and cities in the future without such a strong reliance on cars.

Not sure about the effectivness of it, but sounds like Jersey would probably take the traffic, and Philadelphia might connect pedestrians/residents more with the river. If it were to ever be in fruition...

[tom_567]

While I agree that Philadelphia's I-95 being situated next to the river makes for an eyesore, where else would you have put it? Its location and design makes sense, as it gets people to the airport (which is on the river), it allows for easy access to ports (goods come in by ship and then can be easily moved by truck), stadiums, and facilitates interstate commerce between Philadelphia and other destintations.

Turning it into Roosevelt Blvd East would kill interstate commerce. The author seems to foget that the I in I-95 is Interstate. Also, why would PA build the I-95 connector ramps to NJ and then turn 95 into a 24/7 parking lot within the city limits?

Philadelphia has PLENTY of sustainable space that it can use to expand. It is still a city designed for 2 million that is housing 1.6 million people. Tons of neighborhoods within city limits (much of North Philly for example) are ripe for sustainable redevelopment.

Connecting to the river for residential use is more aesthetic and its roots were always commercial in nature.

[rotodome]

If "to go" you're talking about eliminating the stretch that cuts off the city from it's waterfront, then no, it would by no means be the first such project in the USA. Look up the Embarcadero in SF, the "Big Dig" in Boston, the West Side Highway in NYC, etc...

[drive carephilly]

Originally Posted by tom_567

While I agree that Philadelphia's I-95 being situated next to the river makes for an eyesore, where else would you have put it?

Where should it have gone when it was being planned for back in the 50s? How about Route 1? Most of the houses along its route in Bucks & Philadelphia County hadn't even been built yet. It would've been far less destructive.

Its location and design makes sense, as it gets people to the airport (which is on the river), it allows for easy access to ports (goods come in by ship and then can be easily moved by truck), stadiums, and facilitates interstate commerce between Philadelphia and other destintations.

Just because you tear down a 1 or 2 mile stretch of I-95 that not many people are using as a thoroughfare anyway doesn't mean the rest of the road disappears or becomes useless.

Almost all of the port activity is south of Snyder Ave. and that was true back when 95 was being built. Most freight should be leaving the port by rail anyway but the local trucks would still have the same access to I-95 and 76.

Turning it into Roosevelt Blvd East would kill interstate commerce. The author seems to foget that the I in I-95 is Interstate. Also, why would PA build the I-95 connector ramps to NJ and then turn 95 into a 24/7 parking lot within the city limits?

Replacing I-95 in Center City with a different style of roadway capable of handling the capacity that exists there wouldn't kill interstate commerce. The bridges aren't going anywhere.

PA isn't building the I-95 connector - the FHWA is - and it's so Philadelphians can get to NYC (and vice versa) with out having to traverse 3 different local roads to get to the NJ Turnpike.

[ElijahAstin]

I don't think the happy medium Lind is proposing is necessarily a terrible idea, but reducing the speed limit from 50 MPH to 35 MPH and assuming people will either happily switch to public transportation or be willing to slog it in from the northern suburbs is unreasonably optimistic at best. Of course, it's easy to demand suburbanites accommodate to "progress" when you live in Washington Square West and limited-access highway use is nowhere near your daily transportation radar.

I also wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that I-676 is very underused, unless by "underused," she means that it's actually navigable during rush hour.

[drive carephilly]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

I don't think the happy medium Lind is proposing is necessarily a terrible idea, but reducing the speed limit from 50 MPH to 35 MPH and assuming people will either happily switch to public transportation or be willing to slog it in from the northern suburbs is unreasonably optimistic at best.

If you're coming in from the Northeast or Bucks (which people are doing less, traffic counts have dropped by 25% over the last decade) and headed to Center City you're going to be exiting I-95 either onto Vine St Expwy, Callowhill or maybe for Penns Landing. The mile or two stretch that's at issue isn't going to effect you at all.

If you're headed to the airport you can opt for the train, you can go west on 676, or you can suffer through the 2 minutes that might get added to your trip by having to slow down to 35mph for a mile and a half.

I think the unreasonableness is in asking people to give up a part of their neighborhood (or city) and quality of life so people can save a few minutes en route to the airport.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by drive carephilly

If you're coming in from the Northeast or Bucks (which people are doing less, traffic counts have dropped by 25% over the last decade) and headed to Center City you're going to be exiting I-95 either onto Vine St Expwy, Callowhill or maybe for Penns Landing. The mile or two stretch that's at issue isn't going to effect you at all.

I disagree for the reasons below:

Originally Posted by drive carephilly

If you're headed to the airport you can opt for the train, you can go west on 676, or you can suffer through the 2 minutes that might get added to your trip by having to slow down to 35mph for a mile and a half.

The chain reaction of mile after mile of steady traffic rapidly slowing down would add a lot more than a couple minutes, especially if that mile-and-a-half is going to have traffic lights (and from the sound of the article, the stretch seems like it would extent for much longer than a mile-and-a-half, though please correct me if I'm wrong).

And people aren't just driving in from the northern suburbs to get to the airport. They're going to work, hanging out in the city, traveling to points further south, etc. You're clogging an artery without creating much of a suitable bypass, unless, of course, tearing down that section of I-95 means beefing up the Vine Street Expressway and the Platt Bridge.

Originally Posted by drive carephilly

I think the unreasonableness is in asking people to give up a part of their neighborhood (or city) and quality of life so people can save a few minutes en route to the airport.

That's long since been said and done, and don't think that bringing I-95 down to grade level and creating a pedestrian-friendly boulevard plus light rail wouldn't involve scores of eminent domain and cause additional displacement.

[kidphilly]

I have to agree. I think 95 can be better hidden. Greater connectivity of the waterfront is a plus but at this point Philly doesnt need space. Just better uses of it


I also agree that it isnt as simple as just slowing traffic down and there are other traffic issues that would result

[Darbarian]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

I don't think the happy medium Lind is proposing is necessarily a terrible idea, but reducing the speed limit from 50 MPH to 35 MPH and assuming people will either happily switch to public transportation or be willing to slog it in from the northern suburbs is unreasonably optimistic at best. Of course, it's easy to demand suburbanites accommodate to "progress" when you live in Washington Square West and limited-access highway use is nowhere near your daily transportation radar.

I also wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that I-676 is very underused, unless by "underused," she means that it's actually navigable during rush hour.

I think the author might be talking about 676 in NJ.

[DarkWolf]

Alot of Cities are capping , Removing or burying there highways...

Under Construction , Proposed or Planned

Freeway Capping With Bus Rapid Transit

I-280 Newark & The Oranges
I-78 Newark & Hillside
I-80 Paterson
I-80 Bogota
I-35W South Minneapolis
I-287/87 Nyack

Freeway Capping without Transit

I-290 - Chicago
I-90 & 94 in Downtown Chicago
I-90 & 94 in South Chicago
I-35E Downtown St. Paul
I-94 Downtown St. Paul
I-94 St. Paul Western
I-676 Center City Philadelphia
I-90 Boston
I-278 Brooklyn
US-7 Bridgeport
I-95 East Haven
I-95 New Rochelle
I-95 Providence
I-95 Wilmington
I-95 Alexandria
I-395 Arlington
CT-72 New Britain

Highway Burying replaced with a Transitway
I-84 Downtown Hartford
I-90 Downtown Hartford

Highway Burying
I-278 Brooklyn

Highways turned into Boulevards with Transitway
I-95 Penns Landing - Philadelphia
I-83 - Downtown Baltimore
I-787 - Albany's Riverfront
NJ 29 - Downtown Trenton


Highways Turned into Boulevards without Transitway

I-70 - Downtown St. Louis
I-64 - Downtown St. Louis
I-895 - The Bronx