Philadelphia's lack of highways and freeways.. . (Harrisburg, York: established neighborhood, garden, airport)

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by pman

right, but railroads were rarely ever able to strong arm people to the extent the government did during the highway era

You mean except for the era where the government forcibly removed American Indian tribes from their lands so Union Pacific et al. could build railroads?

As much as people like to bash highways for destroying "long-standing" communities, the rails literally destroyed sovereign nations that had been here for centuries.

[stuckinsj]

oh good grief... now where talking about native americans. Im sure they took the land from something too. BTW brooklyn was also taken from the natives. I guess you should be pay reparations as well.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

You mean except for the era where the government forcibly removed American Indian tribes from their lands so Union Pacific et al. could build railroads?
As much as people like to bash highways for destroying "long-standing" communities, the rails literally destroyed sovereign nations that had been here for centuries.

not really. first of all, you are referring to the transcontinental railroads which fit into the "rarely" portion of my statement. second, the railroads didn't destroy the sovereign nations, the US government did, the same entity responsible for the excessive destruction of "undesirable" neighborhoods in the post war era. lastly, most railroad mileage was not transcontinental but in the east built by hundreds of shortlines and the big three (B&O, PRR, and NYC). even these mighty railroads, among the most profitable and most extensive systems in their time, were never able to manhandle cities the way they were in the post war era. and let's not forget the transcontinental railroads were simply soldiers in the US government's manifest destiny.

[Craziaskowboi]

What they're doing to A7 in Hamburg, Germany is exactly what I've been saying needs to be done with I-76 in South Philadelphia. Notice how the Germans are -- -- adding capacity to A7, but also giving it the cut-and-cover treatment to restore the urban fabric. It's a win/win scenario: Hamburg will be served by a modern highway that doesn't disrupt the nearby neighborhoods. PennDOT can modernize and widen I-76 (to six lanes with full interior and exterior shoulders) in South Philadelphia while also covering it to keep the urban fabric intact. In fact, the same thing can be done for most of I-95 between Center City and the Walt Whitman Bridge, and no extra capacity is even needed with it. Oh, and check out the cost of the project in Hamburg: $800M. PennDOT can upgrade I-76 to something that actually justifies its red and blue shield while also restoring the urban fabric in South Philadelphia without spending tens of billions of dollars like they did in Boston. Like it or not, highways are necessary in areas with large populations, so the solution is not to eliminate them, but to give them the cut-and-cover treatment through the densest urban areas to make them less disruptive.

[rotodome]

Why is the cost of an infrastructure project in Hamburg more predictive of project costs in Philly than project costs in Boston?

[pman]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

What they're doing to A7 in Hamburg, Germany is exactly what I've been saying needs to be done with I-76 in South Philadelphia. Notice how the Germans are -- -- adding capacity to A7, but also giving it the cut-and-cover treatment to restore the urban fabric. It's a win/win scenario: Hamburg will be served by a modern highway that doesn't disrupt the nearby neighborhoods. PennDOT can modernize and widen I-76 (to six lanes with full interior and exterior shoulders) in South Philadelphia while also covering it to keep the urban fabric intact. In fact, the same thing can be done for most of I-95 between Center City and the Walt Whitman Bridge, and no extra capacity is even needed with it. Oh, and check out the cost of the project in Hamburg: $800M. PennDOT can upgrade I-76 to something that actually justifies its red and blue shield while also restoring the urban fabric in South Philadelphia without spending tens of billions of dollars like they did in Boston. Like it or not, highways are necessary in areas with large populations, so the solution is not to eliminate them, but to give them the cut-and-cover treatment through the densest urban areas to make them less disruptive.

PennDOT is refusing to cap ONE BLOCK over 676 (already buried) to RESTORE Logan Square Park citing cost. in the US it's cars first, cronies second, people last.

[southbound_295]

I commuted on the Sure-kill during the reconstruction. A good time was had by none. They did a study to check out possibilities to expand the capacity before that debacle was started. The best that they came up with was improved drainage. They also looked into resurrecting the red route. No dice there either.

[rdflk]

Native Philadelphian here. and I've been entertained and marveled by some of the comments, going back to the OP.

1) I'm always curious as to whether certain comments are from native Philadelphians -- who really KNOW the city, past and present...or newcomers who have ,no idea what they're talking about and just spout as IF they do. Ex. comparing Philly to a city or area that it really can't be compared to -- for geography, or development reasons. Granted, those people could say they have some new and fresh ideas....and that a Philadelphian might be 'to close to the situation' to see other possibilities.

2) There's CONDITION of a highway -- and there's CAPACITY of the road -- which of course are two different things. As for CONDITION of the Schuylkill Expressway, I don't think it's bad at all. Oh, I guess about 25 years ago from end to end it underwent MAJOR, MAJOR repaving, support reinforcement, exits redesigned, etc. Since then there've been some touch ups that have kept the CONDITION is excellent shape.

As for CAPACITY: it's got the river on one side and train tracks or mountains of rock on the other. So widening it I don't' see ever happening.

Unless you displace MILLIONS of people...Philadelphia has the roads it's going to have. It's shape and topography make NEW roads difficult. The roads we have are PART of Philadelphia...unless you can increase capacity by going over or under the CURRENT footprints, we have what have. And if any newbie complainer has a gazillion trillion dollars, call Harrisburg make an offer, and they can name the new roads after you.

I don't think the Schuylkill Expressway is THAT bad...better than when I was a kid.....WAAAAY better. And I -95 is being worked on right now. Talk about a road that is ALWAYS being worked on SOMEwhere, at SOME time....it's 95.

A couple of ideas -- which of course would cost just as much money as any other...would be.... tunneling UNDER the city but that could only be done in certain areas, or elevated highways. I like that idea, but I can just see a nut case driving off the elevated road onto a neighborhood below....But an elevated road OVER the current 95 wouldn't run over that many housing neighborhoods -- mostly dock, railroad and industrial areas. Perhaps an elevated road over the current Schuylkill?

Personally I've always thought LINCOLN DRIVE was the scariest road in the city. Rock on one side, River on the other, NO dividers. No way out. Scary. I've surprised there aren't MORE head ons on that road. But a friend who lives in Mount Airy says people who drive that road every day -- REALLY KNOW that road so they can handle it.

[pman]

there are dividers on lincoln but the lanes are narrow and curvy, judging by the condition of the dividers there are lots of accidents (not to mention washouts). it was built to be a pleasure drive not a highway, no way it should be four lanes

[rdflk]

there are dividers on lincoln but the lanes are narrow and curvy

Yes, you're correct. I suppose I should have been clearer, are are SOME dividers, along some areas. But definitely not all. Along some stretches and curves of it you're in the lane right next to opposing traffic.