I-76 Schuylkill Expressway - A Modest Proposal
essex9999
Schuylkill Expressway (I-76 between the PA Tpk and I-95) is a miserable,
inadequate, and outdated road. Unfortunately, PennDOT has thrown its hands
in the air - or, more characteristically, inserted its thumb in its
institutional ass - and declared that there's nothing to be done about the
highway. The original designer's memorable kiss-off to motorists - "if you
don't like it, don't drive it" - still seems to be their motto. (A gallingly
ironic remark given Pennsylvania's failure to provide ANY other high-speed
access to the city from the west.)
In fairness, major improvements to the roadway would indeed be a huge
engineering undertaking with serious political implications, not least
because the areas that would suffer most from an expansion also happen to be
Philadelphia's richest suburbs.
However, it seems to me that there's one thing that could be done with no
construction to the Expressway at all. Why not ban trucks from the road
between I-476 and I-676, at least during daylight hours? I travel this
stretch of road every work day, and I can say with certainly that the same
trucks that are already on the road when I get on at Gulph Mills are still
on it what I get off at University Avenue. In other words, they are not
using the Schuylkill to get from the west INTO central Philadelphia but
rather THROUGH Philadelphia to South Philly or NJ. Both of the those areas
are easily accessed from I-95. Trucks needing to travel through could take
the Turnpike to 476 to 95 (or travel at night). Not only would this
considerably ease traffic congestion, but it would also make for a safer
road. It's not that truck drivers are unsafe - to the contrary, I think
they're probably better-than-average drivers - but rather that an accident
involving a truck is bound to be more destructive and disruptive than one
involving a passenger car.
I realize that this might not be possible as long as the Expressway retains
interstate highway status. That's easily remedied. Take it out of the I
system and designate it "the Schuylkill Parkway," analogous to the many
parkways that ease traffic flow through Westchester County New York.
Is this feasible? Thanks.
big...@yahoo.com
I don't drive this freeway regularly, as I live in Oregon. However, 5
weeks ago when vacationing over there I had the incredible misfortune
of choosing it as the route I took out of Philadelphia. I thought that
it was in very poor shape and under-powered for the amount of traffic
it carried. There were many slow-downs and heavy traffic even when
moving, and I was on it about 11:00 a.m. -- I can't imagine what it's
like during rush hour! I also thought that it was routed poorly along
the river. It didn't seem to me that the terrain wouldn't have allowed
for a more direct route in the city. I speculated that the river route
was the path-of-least-NIMBY-resistance.
I like your idea. Leave 76 on the turnpike replacing 276 where it can
end at the new interchange with 95. The Schuykill Parkway could be
re-numbered as an extension of US 422. I also like the idea of banning
trucks, although that idea would take a lot of heat from the trucking
industry. What reasonable alternate routes would a trucker have to get
into Philadelphia from the west? There wouldn't be many decent options
for them.
The removal of trucks makes an impact. I drove a stretch on the
Taconic Parkway in NY, and while there was considerable traffic (July
4th weekend), it flowed just fine with no trucks. So I think your idea
would ease the traffic. However, I think loss of the route for truck
access to the city would kill the idea.
Chris
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Anyone who drives regularly in the Philadelphia area knows that the
> Schuylkill Expressway (I-76 between the PA Tpk and I-95) is a miserable,
> inadequate, and outdated road. Unfortunately, PennDOT has thrown its hands
> in the air - or, more characteristically, inserted its thumb in its
> institutional ass - and declared that there's nothing to be done about the
> highway. The original designer's memorable kiss-off to motorists - "if you
> don't like it, don't drive it" - still seems to be their motto. (A gallingly
> ironic remark given Pennsylvania's failure to provide ANY other high-speed
> access to the city from the west.)
>
> In fairness, major improvements to the roadway would indeed be a huge
> engineering undertaking with serious political implications, not least
> because the areas that would suffer most from an expansion also happen to be
> Philadelphia's richest suburbs.
In the mid-1970s, PennDOT did study and program projects for 6-lane
widening on the Schuylkill Expressway between I-476 and US-1 City
Avenue. It was feasible, but alas, they have never been built.
It wouldn't take much additional right-of-way to widen the Schuylkill
Expressway to 6 or 8 lanes, west of US-1 City Avenue.
> However, it seems to me that there's one thing that could be done with no
> construction to the Expressway at all. Why not ban trucks from the road
> between I-476 and I-676, at least during daylight hours?
There are plenty of origins and destinations for trucks along the I-76
corridor and its freeway spurs (US-1 Roosevelt Expressway and I-676 Vine
Street Expressway) in the city of Philadelphia and New Jersey.
The I-76 Schuylkill Expressway is the only east-west freeway through the
city of Philadelphia; and even though it runs more northwest-southeast,
I-95 in the city of Philadelphia runs generally perpendicular to the
Schuylkill Expressway, southwest-northeast for I-95.
As such, the I-76 Schuylkill Expressway is far too important of a
freeway to consider any restrictions on truck traffic on that highway.
> I realize that this might not be possible as long as the Expressway retains
> interstate highway status. That's easily remedied. Take it out of the I
> system and designate it "the Schuylkill Parkway," analogous to the many
> parkways that ease traffic flow through Westchester County New York.
The Schuylkill Expressway's role in the regional highway system,
certainly warrants an Interstate route designation.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Brian
on the other side of the state -- an inadequate and outdated expressway
leading into Pittsburgh from the east. The one thing that I've
wondered about Philadelphia and the Schuylkill is how adequate some of
the other arterials are that rougly parallel the Schuylkill,
particularly US 30, during rush hour for traffic in & out of Center
City? I ask this because the one thing that has always irked me about
I-376 in Pittsburgh is that US 22 and US 30 are multiplexed with it,
and I've always felt that those two routes had their own alignments
into downtown Pittsburgh that some congestion could be relieved from
the interstate. This is one thing I've always admired about Northern
Virgina, where you have the interstates (I-395 and I-66) as well as
separate arterial routes (US 50, US 29 US 1, VA 7, VA 236, etc.) that
can feed traffic through the area.
Can you give me a rough idea of what traffic on US 30 between the Vine
Street Expressway & the Blue Route is like during rush hour in
Philadelphia, and what the drive time numbers for that stretch are in
comparison to just staying on the Schuyllkill and dealing with the
congestion. If you could shed some light on this subject, that would
be great.
Thanks!
P.S. You are indeed correct about the parkways around NYC, they are a
very beautiful thing! Too bad Pittsburghers are so dumb that they have
the nerve call our pathetic interstates parkways, because they are
certainly far from it. I think "Cross Bronx Expressway" is a better
analagous title for I-376 in Pittsburgh during rush hour.
Adam Prince
"Brian" <ebs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155003665....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I appreciate you bringing this up. I have similar feelings about I-376
> on the other side of the state -- an inadequate and outdated expressway
> leading into Pittsburgh from the east. The one thing that I've
> wondered about Philadelphia and the Schuylkill is how adequate some of
> the other arterials are that rougly parallel the Schuylkill,
> particularly US 30, during rush hour for traffic in & out of Center
> City? I ask this because the one thing that has always irked me about
> I-376 in Pittsburgh is that US 22 and US 30 are multiplexed with it,
> and I've always felt that those two routes had their own alignments
> into downtown Pittsburgh that some congestion could be relieved from
> the interstate.
Time out here. What alignment would you suggest 22 and 30 to follow?
This is one thing I've always admired about Northern
> Virgina, where you have the interstates (I-395 and I-66) as well as
> separate arterial routes (US 50, US 29 US 1, VA 7, VA 236, etc.) that
> can feed traffic through the area.
Amazing what undeveloped and flatter land can do. Or in NC, unincorporated
land can do.
>
> Can you give me a rough idea of what traffic on US 30 between the Vine
> Street Expressway & the Blue Route is like during rush hour in
> Philadelphia, and what the drive time numbers for that stretch are in
> comparison to just staying on the Schuyllkill and dealing with the
> congestion. If you could shed some light on this subject, that would
> be great.
>
> Thanks!
>
> P.S. You are indeed correct about the parkways around NYC, they are a
> very beautiful thing! Too bad Pittsburghers are so dumb that they have
> the nerve call our pathetic interstates parkways, because they are
> certainly far from it. I think "Cross Bronx Expressway" is a better
> analagous title for I-376 in Pittsburgh during rush hour.
Well considering that was what they were named in the 1950s. I don't think
it was that dumb.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Can you give me a rough idea of what traffic on US 30 between the Vine
> Street Expressway & the Blue Route is like during rush hour in
> Philadelphia, and what the drive time numbers for that stretch are in
> comparison to just staying on the Schuyllkill and dealing with the
> congestion. If you could shed some light on this subject, that would
> be great.
That section of US-30 Lancaster Avenue is mostly a 4-lane undivided
urban arterial, and plenty congested in peak hours, with lots of traffic
lights. It in nowise could take the place of the Schuylkill Expressway,
as it has far less capacity than the Expressway.
Scott M. Kozel
> > separate arterial routes (US 50, US 29 US 1, VA 7, VA 236, etc.) that
> > can feed traffic through the area.
>
> Amazing what undeveloped and flatter land can do.
Northern Virginia <> undeveloped, not even when most of those highways
were built.
Jeff Kitsko
> on the other side of the state -- an inadequate and outdated expressway
> leading into Pittsburgh from the east. The one thing that I've
> wondered about Philadelphia and the Schuylkill is how adequate some of
> the other arterials are that rougly parallel the Schuylkill,
> particularly US 30, during rush hour for traffic in & out of Center
> City? I ask this because the one thing that has always irked me about
> I-376 in Pittsburgh is that US 22 and US 30 are multiplexed with it,
> and I've always felt that those two routes had their own alignments
> into downtown Pittsburgh that some congestion could be relieved from
> the interstate. This is one thing I've always admired about Northern
> Virgina, where you have the interstates (I-395 and I-66) as well as
> separate arterial routes (US 50, US 29 US 1, VA 7, VA 236, etc.) that
> can feed traffic through the area.
There were plans to build other expressways in and around the Pittsburgh
area, just as there were in Philadelphia, Harrisburg, etc. However,
financial conditions within the state caused projects everywhere to be
cancelled.
> P.S. You are indeed correct about the parkways around NYC, they are a
> very beautiful thing! Too bad Pittsburghers are so dumb that they have
> the nerve call our pathetic interstates parkways, because they are
> certainly far from it. I think "Cross Bronx Expressway" is a better
> analagous title for I-376 in Pittsburgh during rush hour.
Nice way to win friends with that "Pittsburghers are so dumb" crack, since
there are numerous ones here.
It's name is the Penn-Lincoln Parkway (Parkway East), so the name is
fitting. The reason it was named that was because Robert Moses planned it
as the "Pitt Parkway" and used the same design standards as the NYC ones he
planned.
--
Jeff Kitsko
Pennsylvania Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/
Adam Prince
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:44D7FBBA...@comcast.net...
> "Adam Prince" <apri...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Brian" <ebs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is one thing I've always admired about Northern
>> > Virginia, where you have the interstates (I-395 and I-66) as well as
>> > separate arterial routes (US 50, US 29 US 1, VA 7, VA 236, etc.) that
>> > can feed traffic through the area.
>>
>> Amazing what undeveloped and flatter land can do.
>
> Northern Virginia <> undeveloped, not even when most of those highways
> were built.
Compared to today and even to Pittsburgh in the 1950s.
Brian
Adam Prince wrote:
> "Brian" <ebs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1155003665....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >I appreciate you bringing this up. I have similar feelings about I-376
> > on the other side of the state -- an inadequate and outdated expressway
> > leading into Pittsburgh from the east. The one thing that I've
> > wondered about Philadelphia and the Schuylkill is how adequate some of
> > the other arterials are that rougly parallel the Schuylkill,
> > particularly US 30, during rush hour for traffic in & out of Center
> > City? I ask this because the one thing that has always irked me about
> > I-376 in Pittsburgh is that US 22 and US 30 are multiplexed with it,
> > and I've always felt that those two routes had their own alignments
> > into downtown Pittsburgh that some congestion could be relieved from
> > the interstate.
>
> Time out here. What alignment would you suggest 22 and 30 to follow?
Oh, I'm not saying this would be a simple feat. Properties would need
acquired and ROW created, something that's likely NEVER going to
happen. If an alignment were to be created, something along the lines
of linking the end of the Blvd. of the Allies at Schenley Park to the
4-laned section of Forbes Ave. through Frick Park, then create new ROW
from Frick park to the exisiting 4 laned William Penn Highway in
Churchill (or existing US 30 in Forrest Hills), without having any
zig-zagged city street turns along the way, would be the one to
leverage the most existing roads, and still provide an alternative.
Throw up a couple of "No Commercial Traffic" signs, and I'm sure you'd
put smiles on more than a few people who drive in to Pittsburgh every
day and have 60+ min. commutes to travel around 25 miles. I'm bringing
up the point merely as something to think about, how awesome it would
truly be to live in the east of Pittsburgh and have some nice 4-laned,
continuous arterial routes to go directly to downtown, in addition to
the existing I-376. One can only stare at brake lights for so long,
and the old, decrepit ugly concrete that composes I-376.
Joe Blasi
PA turnpike and traffic was so bad at the road work by I-476 that I got
off and went a round I-476 on a local road. And Went I got back on
traffic going the other way was a lot worse. Jam packed to to at least
us 1 and some cars had there hoods up.
Brian
No need to poke fun at me, I know plenty about the origins of the
Penn-Lincoln Parkway's name, but I was just saying that the name hardly
fits the highway in its current state. It's just a tad upsetting that
the NYC parkways are so plentiful, and backed by numerous interstates
as well, when compared to Pittsburgh. I know we have numerous
topographical issues, and seemingly numerous finanical issues, that
prevent alot of this stuff, but at the same time, the money seems to
flow a lot more freely for this type of improvements in places like
Northern Virgina. And trust me, I've driven US 30 enough continuous
times between Pittsbugh and Chambersburg (and even to York, PA) to know
just about every crack, speed limit, and curve, as well as most of the
historical realignments along the highway, that I could practically be
a tour guide for the Lincoln Highway Heritage Corridor. While I may
bring up a lot of the uglier points about the roads in this region on
here, I'm certainly not trying to be unfriendly about it, I'm just
trying to express my ideas (no matter how blissfully, utopian they
are), because I think folks around this area tend to not think about
stuff like this nearly as much as I do. Overall, I'd be fairly certain
that you'd find me to be quite a knowledgable person about this stuff
at events such as your roadgeek meets.
Nick C
> "Brian" <ebs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Can you give me a rough idea of what traffic on US 30 between the Vine
>> Street Expressway & the Blue Route is like during rush hour in
>> Philadelphia, and what the drive time numbers for that stretch are in
>> comparison to just staying on the Schuyllkill and dealing with the
>> congestion. If you could shed some light on this subject, that would
>> be great.
>
> That section of US-30 Lancaster Avenue is mostly a 4-lane undivided
> urban arterial, and plenty congested in peak hours, with lots of traffic
> lights. It in nowise could take the place of the Schuylkill Expressway,
> as it has far less capacity than the Expressway.
>
Agreed. I go to school along the Main Line and I won't travel down or near
US 30 anytime during rush hour (especially Friday afternoons). Traffic on
US 30 itself and many side streets often has a 4 light delay especially with
the heavy presence of "No Turn on Red" intersections. A major choke point
is the intersection with PA 320 near the Blue Route--a six way intersection.
Sherman L. Cahal
> Jeff,
>
> No need to poke fun at me, I know plenty about the origins of the
> Penn-Lincoln Parkway's name, but I was just saying that the name hardly
> fits the highway in its current state. It's just a tad upsetting that
> the NYC parkways are so plentiful, and backed by numerous interstates
> as well, when compared to Pittsburgh. I know we have numerous
> topographical issues, and seemingly numerous finanical issues, that
> prevent alot of this stuff, but at the same time, the money seems to
> flow a lot more freely for this type of improvements in places like
> Northern Virgina. And trust me, I've driven US 30 enough continuous
> times between Pittsbugh and Chambersburg (and even to York, PA) to know
> just about every crack, speed limit, and curve, as well as most of the
> historical realignments along the highway, that I could practically be
> a tour guide for the Lincoln Highway Heritage Corridor. While I may
> bring up a lot of the uglier points about the roads in this region on
> here, I'm certainly not trying to be unfriendly about it, I'm just
> trying to express my ideas (no matter how blissfully, utopian they
> are), because I think folks around this area tend to not think about
> stuff like this nearly as much as I do. Overall, I'd be fairly certain
> that you'd find me to be quite a knowledgable person about this stuff
> at events such as your roadgeek meets.
If you are going to have that much grief over roads, it's probably time
you go and find yourself a life.
Or just stop driving through the areas you complain about a lot.
Sherman L. Cahal
> Jeff,
>
> No need to poke fun at me, I know plenty about the origins of the
> Penn-Lincoln Parkway's name, but I was just saying that the name hardly
> fits the highway in its current state. It's just a tad upsetting that
> the NYC parkways are so plentiful, and backed by numerous interstates
> as well, when compared to Pittsburgh. I know we have numerous
> topographical issues, and seemingly numerous finanical issues, that
> prevent alot of this stuff, but at the same time, the money seems to
> flow a lot more freely for this type of improvements in places like
> Northern Virgina. And trust me, I've driven US 30 enough continuous
> times between Pittsbugh and Chambersburg (and even to York, PA) to know
> just about every crack, speed limit, and curve, as well as most of the
> historical realignments along the highway, that I could practically be
> a tour guide for the Lincoln Highway Heritage Corridor. While I may
> bring up a lot of the uglier points about the roads in this region on
> here, I'm certainly not trying to be unfriendly about it, I'm just
> trying to express my ideas (no matter how blissfully, utopian they
> are), because I think folks around this area tend to not think about
> stuff like this nearly as much as I do. Overall, I'd be fairly certain
> that you'd find me to be quite a knowledgable person about this stuff
> at events such as your roadgeek meets.
If you are going to have that much grief over roads, it's probably time
Adam Prince
> See my reply below -
>
> Adam Prince wrote:
>> "Brian" <ebs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155003665....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >I appreciate you bringing this up. I have similar feelings about I-376
>> > on the other side of the state -- an inadequate and outdated expressway
>> > leading into Pittsburgh from the east. The one thing that I've
>> > wondered about Philadelphia and the Schuylkill is how adequate some of
>> > the other arterials are that rougly parallel the Schuylkill,
>> > particularly US 30, during rush hour for traffic in & out of Center
>> > City? I ask this because the one thing that has always irked me about
>> > I-376 in Pittsburgh is that US 22 and US 30 are multiplexed with it,
>> > and I've always felt that those two routes had their own alignments
>> > into downtown Pittsburgh that some congestion could be relieved from
>> > the interstate.
>>
>> Time out here. What alignment would you suggest 22 and 30 to follow?
>
> Oh, I'm not saying this would be a simple feat. Properties would need
> acquired and ROW created, something that's likely NEVER going to
> happen.
Oh so you are wanting something new vs. using existing routes.
If an alignment were to be created, something along the lines
> of linking the end of the Blvd. of the Allies at Schenley Park to the
> 4-laned section of Forbes Ave. through Frick Park, then create new ROW
> from Frick park to the exisiting 4 laned William Penn Highway in
> Churchill (or existing US 30 in Forrest Hills), without having any
> zig-zagged city street turns along the way, would be the one to
> leverage the most existing roads, and still provide an alternative.
Is this mythical highway with slightly controlled access, or a standard four
lane divided set up?
How do you eliminate the lights and improve the intersections on the
existing Blvd of the Allies, espescially near Oakland. How do you tie it
into downtown, via the Blvd. of the Allies, from the Duquesne Bluff?
Do you utilize Forbes and Fifth Avenues through Oakland and then Forbes Ave.
through CMU and Squirrell Hill or do you run it through Schenely Park?
Would you utilize Penn Ave. if you wanted to connect it around Business 22
in the East Hills?
Do you finally build the spine line or convert the recently extended East
Busway to light rail or even a two lane and if possible four lane auto
highway?
> Throw up a couple of "No Commercial Traffic" signs, and I'm sure you'd
> put smiles on more than a few people who drive in to Pittsburgh every
> day and have 60+ min. commutes to travel around 25 miles.
I don't think you would see that as much as an alternative as you make it
out to be.
Eliminate the Squirrel Hill Tunnel and you'd have your wish also.
I'm bringing
> up the point merely as something to think about, how awesome it would
> truly be to live in the east of Pittsburgh and have some nice 4-laned,
> continuous arterial routes to go directly to downtown, in addition to
> the existing I-376.
How far from the city though? Personally, I never thought about it and I
grew up in the area. Secondly, there really is no realistic basis for this
for many of the reasons mentioned. Topography, urban density, existing
streets, and any R-O-W control.
Plus throw in the fact that aertials such as Allegheny River Blvd. and
Bigelow Blvd. were built in the 1920s for just such a thing. Obviously
those aren't used with the same intentions today, nor do they reach far out
enough today.
There are numerous factors in the real life situation than a what if
scenario. Sometimes you have to work with the hand you are dealt.
One can only stare at brake lights for so long,
> and the old, decrepit ugly concrete that composes I-376.
However, isn't that the same in just about any other city?
essex9999
> >
> > Can you give me a rough idea of what traffic on US 30 between the Vine
> > Street Expressway & the Blue Route is like during rush hour in
> > Philadelphia, and what the drive time numbers for that stretch are in
> > comparison to just staying on the Schuyllkill and dealing with the
> > congestion. If you could shed some light on this subject, that would
> > be great.
>
> That section of US-30 Lancaster Avenue is mostly a 4-lane undivided
> urban arterial, and plenty congested in peak hours, with lots of traffic
> lights. It in nowise could take the place of the Schuylkill Expressway,
> as it has far less capacity than the Expressway.
Agreed. Aside from the problems you mention, there is a lack of both left
and right turn lanes. Drive in the right lane, and you're sure to get stuck
behind somebody turning into a parking lot (and taking their own sweet time
about it, too). Drive in the left lane, and you'll certainly end up sitting
behind someone who's turning left ... who didn't bother to signal until he
had already stopped at the intersection, of course!
Route 30 is not a good alternative to the Schuylkill Expressway. A better
alternative is Route 3: Walnut Street through West Philly to Market Street
in Upper Darby, which becomes West Chester Pike. you can pick up 476 from
West Chester Pike and go on from there.
Other than a perennially congested intersection in downtown Upper Darby, the
traffic moves surprising well, even at rush hour. Of course, as an urban
street, Walnut Street is often slow, but compared to Lancaster Ave in the
city, with its infuriating trolleys, it's a breeze.
The best alternative is to cut through West Philly to Belmont Road and
follow that to Route 23 (leading to the intersection mentioned in my other
post this evening). However, it's a bit tricky and not easy for those
unfamiliar with the area. It's also very hilly and curvy, dangerous in snow
and ice, deer-strewn after dark, and prone to flooding after heavy rains.
Other than that ... it's perfect!
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > That section of US-30 Lancaster Avenue is mostly a 4-lane undivided
> > urban arterial, and plenty congested in peak hours, with lots of traffic
> > lights. It in nowise could take the place of the Schuylkill Expressway,
> > as it has far less capacity than the Expressway.
>
> Agreed. I go to school along the Main Line and I won't travel down or near
> US 30 anytime during rush hour (especially Friday afternoons). Traffic on
> US 30 itself and many side streets often has a 4 light delay especially with
> the heavy presence of "No Turn on Red" intersections. A major choke point
> is the intersection with PA 320 near the Blue Route--a six way intersection.
I went to school along the Main Line back in the early 1970s, and even
with the lower traffic volumes back then, US-30 was nearly as bad, even
compared to the Schuylkill Expressway.
Brian
Blvd. of the Allies eastward from Schenley Park, out to at least US 30
in Forrest Hills. A split could occur somewhere along the route for
traffic headed towards Churchill and US 22. I wouldn't necessarily
have it leverage any of the East Busway at all (though having that
right-of-way be used as a separate, more limited access route into
downtown wouldn't be a bad idea either.) I wouldn't do anything with
the traffic lights in Oakland along that stretch of the Blvd of the
Allies, and overall, wouldn't have an issue with additional traffic
lights along the route, just as long as they were timed well and
through traffic wouldn't have to turn left or right at any of the
intersections to stay on the main route. Rather, just the idea of
having a contuous 4-laned route in that section in my mind would be a
win, to provide a straight shot alternative route for through traffic.
I've driven similar types of continuous through routes into other major
cities in the past, such as US 40 into Baltimore, US 50 through
Northern Virginia into DC, and MA 9 into Boston from Worcester, and
thought they were all reasonably good alternative, non-Interstate
alignments. I've driven the current alternative route for I-376 in
Pittsburgh on occasion during rush hour, that involves the city streets
of Penn Ave, Braddock Ave, Forbes Ave, and misc. roads through Squirrel
Hill during rush hour as an alternative to I-376, and if all of the
left & right turns along the way could be eliminated, it wouldn't be a
bad alternative at all.
As for your mention of eliminating the Squirrel Hill Tunnel to improve
traffic on I-376, I'm honestly convinced that the tunnel it is not as a
big of a culprit as simply the lack of adequate capacity on the road
itself; the tunnel could stay, and simply have an additional capacity
added to it, if it were feasible. I "clinch" I-376 on a daily basis,
and have been for the past 3+ years, and it seems that the delays are
primarily caused by too much traffic merging into the interstate from
the Churchill, Forrest Hills, and Edgewood / Swissvale exits in the
AM, and similarly from Squirrel Hill and Edgewood / Swissvale in the
evening rush hour. The tunnel certainly slows the traffic some, but I
think only having the 5 minute delay that the tunnel causes in would be
much more tolerable than the 20+ minute wait that currently exists due
to all the merging to traverse about 3-4 miles of that road through the
aftermentioned exits.
Adam Prince
Brian wrote:
> I'd say this "mythical" alignment would extend the existing 4-laned
> Blvd. of the Allies eastward from Schenley Park, out to at least US 30
> in Forrest Hills.
Ouch, you'd have a better chance with Frick Park than doing something
through Schenley Park.
A split could occur somewhere along the route for
> traffic headed towards Churchill and US 22. I wouldn't necessarily
> have it leverage any of the East Busway at all (though having that
> right-of-way be used as a separate, more limited access route into
> downtown wouldn't be a bad idea either.) I wouldn't do anything with
> the traffic lights in Oakland along that stretch of the Blvd of the
> Allies, and overall, wouldn't have an issue with additional traffic
> lights along the route, just as long as they were timed well and
> through traffic wouldn't have to turn left or right at any of the
> intersections to stay on the main route. Rather, just the idea of
> having a contuous 4-laned route in that section in my mind would be a
> win, to provide a straight shot alternative route for through traffic.
Would you limit the access control (business and residential access) on
the Blvd. of the Allies through Oakland? And if you would, how?
Even if you go via Forbes and Fifth (which would be the closest
comparison to your suggestion) you would have to deal with pedestrian
traffic, on street parking, etc.
Plus, how does this route tie into Downtown since the westbound Blvd.
of the Allies stops at Crosstown Blvd.
> I've driven similar types of continuous through routes into other major
> cities in the past, such as US 40 into Baltimore, US 50 through
> Northern Virginia into DC, and MA 9 into Boston from Worcester, and
> thought they were all reasonably good alternative, non-Interstate
> alignments.
Ok, here's a question what is your definition of a good alternative
routing? What does it consist of (lanes, access control, other
standards)
I've driven the current alternative route for I-376 in
> Pittsburgh on occasion during rush hour, that involves the city streets
> of Penn Ave, Braddock Ave, Forbes Ave, and misc. roads through Squirrel
> Hill during rush hour as an alternative to I-376, and if all of the
> left & right turns along the way could be eliminated, it wouldn't be a
> bad alternative at all.
First, how long was that trip compared to a normal trip on the Parkway
East. Second, if I am not mistaken all those roads have very different
standards, alignments, and looks throughout.
>
> As for your mention of eliminating the Squirrel Hill Tunnel to improve
> traffic on I-376, I'm honestly convinced that the tunnel it is not as a
> big of a culprit as simply the lack of adequate capacity on the road
> itself; the tunnel could stay, and simply have an additional capacity
> added to it, if it were feasible. I "clinch" I-376 on a daily basis,
> and have been for the past 3+ years, and it seems that the delays are
> primarily caused by too much traffic merging into the interstate from
> the Churchill, Forrest Hills, and Edgewood / Swissvale exits in the
> AM, and similarly from Squirrel Hill and Edgewood / Swissvale in the
> evening rush hour.
I will grant you that, the merging right of many of these ramps occur
right at the tunnel. Eliminate the tunnel and you can improve some of
the interchanges.
Obviously redesigning, if possible, these interchanges would be a big
help.
The tunnel certainly slows the traffic some, but I
> think only having the 5 minute delay that the tunnel causes in would be
> much more tolerable than the 20+ minute wait that currently exists due
> to all the merging to traverse about 3-4 miles of that road through the
> aftermentioned exits.
However, your alternative would have to have major grade improvements
to be a viable alternative.
Adam Prince
Adam Prince wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > I've driven similar types of continuous through routes into other major
> > cities in the past, such as US 40 into Baltimore, US 50 through
> > Northern Virginia into DC, and MA 9 into Boston from Worcester, and
> > thought they were all reasonably good alternative, non-Interstate
> > alignments.
>
> Ok, here's a question what is your definition of a good alternative
> routing? What does it consist of (lanes, access control, other
> standards)
Let me expand on this, these routes in comparison are suburban
connectors, somewhat like McKnight Road is in the North Hills. They
feed more suburb to suburb traffic while shuttlign through.
Routes like Ohio River Blvd, Sam Mill Run Blvd., Allegheny River Blvd.,
Bigelow Blvd, The Blvd of the Allies were built 80 years ago with that
purpose in mind.
http://www.gribblenation.com/swparoads/arb/
http://www.gribblenation.com/swparoads/orb/index.html
http://www.gribblenation.com/swparoads/smr/SMR.html
Even in the early 60's freeway plan such feeder routes weren't
considered from the East End. Nothing was proposed on an e-w route
into downtown inside Oakland.
See Map: http://pittsburgh.pahighways.com/expressways/cancelled/
The closest was the East Liberty Expwy:
http://pittsburgh.pahighways.com/expressways/cancelled/elexpressway.html
city?
Brian
If I had to give an example of a road in this area that would be
the ideal type of road for an alternative routing into downtown from
the east, it would be something along the lines of the design Ardmore
Blvd (US-30), similar to the segment from the Westinghouse Bridge to
the I-376 interchange. If that same type of road design was continued
into Wilkinsburg, Point Breeze, Shady Side, etc, with restrictions to
prohibit on-street parking and no portions of it that would narrow to 2
lanes, that would probably move pretty good.
The current alignment using Penn Ave. and Fifth Ave. is fairly
good, with the exception of the 2 laned section through Wilkinsburg,
and the left hand turn that is required to go from Penn on to Fifth,
near Mellon Park, tends to be a pain. I'm honestly not sure how I
would route it once I got closer to Oakland on Fifth, as I'd likely
want to avoid the Fifth/Forbes cooridor in some way, due to most of the
issues you've raised (high pedestrian traffic, street parking, etc.).
Bigelow Blvd is a good route in the North, but not convenient to get to
from Fifth Ave without using side streets, and the Blvd. of the Allies
is good too, but alas too far south of Fifth Ave.
As for the downtown end of the Boulevard of the Allies, it could
either stay as is, and have traffic use the existing Seventh Avenue
exit into downtown where it merges with I-579 North, or simply modify
the Crosstown Blvd. interchange to allow traffic on the boulevard to
continue straight into downtown at the intersection with Grant Street.
Again, feasibilitiy is not likely, but in theory, it would be nice.
Jeff Kitsko
> Jeff,
>
> No need to poke fun at me, I know plenty about the origins of the
> Penn-Lincoln Parkway's name, but I was just saying that the name hardly
> fits the highway in its current state.
I wasn't poking fun at you, I was defending the "Pittsburghers are so dumb"
remark you made. While it does not fit its "Parkway" name to a T, there are
sections such as between Exit 5 and Exit 8 that resemble a parkway. Much
more so than I-279 which was given the North designation and no doubt PA
Turnpike 43 that will be the South leg.
> It's just a tad upsetting that
> the NYC parkways are so plentiful, and backed by numerous interstates
> as well, when compared to Pittsburgh. I know we have numerous
> topographical issues, and seemingly numerous finanical issues, that
> prevent alot of this stuff, but at the same time, the money seems to
> flow a lot more freely for this type of improvements in places like
> Northern Virgina.
Comparing apples and oranges. NYC also has eight million people and their
parkways were laid out by Moses before DEIS, public hearings, etc. that have
to go on now. Even at the height of the steel industry, Pittsburgh and its
environs did not have nearly as many people. Northern Virginia is growing
and would choke on traffic if they didn't do anything. Also, their tax base
is higher, due to the cost of living being exponentially higher.
Pittsburgh is an older, denser city than ones in the south and west that
were in their infancy when the Interstate System began. There were less
obstructions to build through than in the older cities of the north. As the
man who laid out the Penn-Lincoln Parkway said, "You can draw any kind of
picture you like on a clean slate and indulge your every whim in the
wilderness in laying out a New Delhi, Canberra, or Brasilia, but when you
operate in an overbuilt metropolis, you have to hack your way with a meat
axe." No one is willing to freely give the government any land to build,
especially under the current administration. They'd probably think "Fast
Eddie" would use it to build a casino.
> And trust me, I've driven US 30 enough continuous
> times between Pittsbugh and Chambersburg (and even to York, PA) to know
> just about every crack, speed limit, and curve, as well as most of the
> historical realignments along the highway, that I could practically be
> a tour guide for the Lincoln Highway Heritage Corridor.
I have driven 30 as well numerous times, especially in the
Somerset-Allegheny County corridor in my 29 years, and have completed it
from West Virgina to New Jersey. I even grew up near it and am a board
member of the LHHC.
I wasn't doubting your knowledge of roads, but merely explaining the
background of how 376 got its name as well as explaining why there are no
other expressways, not just in Pittsburgh but around the state. It isn't as
if PennDOT simply threw their hands up and said, "We quit!" As a contact of
mine at District 6-0 told me, their engineers would love to be designing and
building roads. In a perfect world, they could, but in this one money is
the problem.
> While I may
> bring up a lot of the uglier points about the roads in this region on
> here, I'm certainly not trying to be unfriendly about it, I'm just
> trying to express my ideas (no matter how blissfully, utopian they
> are), because I think folks around this area tend to not think about
> stuff like this nearly as much as I do.
If your trying not to be unfriendly, then don't insult people by calling
them "dumb." The majority of people everywhere are oblivious to the
intracies of the highway systems in their areas. Calling the Schuylkill a
"Parkway" is only because they equate the look of the road to what is back
home. If everything here was "Expressway," they'd call it an expressway.
Los Angelenos would probably call it the "Schuylkill Freeway."
> Overall, I'd be fairly certain
> that you'd find me to be quite a knowledgable person about this stuff
> at events such as your roadgeek meets.
There is one this weekend.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > That section of US-30 Lancaster Avenue is mostly a 4-lane undivided
> > urban arterial, and plenty congested in peak hours, with lots of traffic
> > lights. It in nowise could take the place of the Schuylkill Expressway,
> > as it has far less capacity than the Expressway.
>
> alternative is Route 3: Walnut Street through West Philly to Market Street
> in Upper Darby, which becomes West Chester Pike. you can pick up 476 from
> West Chester Pike and go on from there.
> Other than a perennially congested intersection in downtown Upper Darby, the
> traffic moves surprising well, even at rush hour. Of course, as an urban
> street, Walnut Street is often slow, but compared to Lancaster Ave in the
> city, with its infuriating trolleys, it's a breeze.
PA-3 is too far to the south to be an alternative to the Schuylkill
Expressway. The sections of PA-3 West Chester Pike in Montgomery and
Chester Counties, handle traffic pretty well, but the segments of PA-3
in the city of Philadelphia are a slow and congested urban arterial with
lots of traffic lights.
--
k_f...@lycos.com
> "Nick C" <MAST...@hotmail-nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > That section of US-30 Lancaster Avenue is mostly a 4-lane undivided
> > > urban arterial, and plenty congested in peak hours, with lots of traffic
> > > lights. It in nowise could take the place of the Schuylkill Expressway,
> > > as it has far less capacity than the Expressway.
> >
> > Agreed. I go to school along the Main Line and I won't travel down or near
> > US 30 anytime during rush hour (especially Friday afternoons). Traffic on
> > US 30 itself and many side streets often has a 4 light delay especially with
> > the heavy presence of "No Turn on Red" intersections. A major choke point
> > is the intersection with PA 320 near the Blue Route--a six way intersection.
>
> I went to school along the Main Line back in the early 1970s, and even
> with the lower traffic volumes back then, US-30 was nearly as bad, even
> compared to the Schuylkill Expressway.
Where at? 'Nova?
essex9999
> Expressway. The sections of PA-3 West Chester Pike in Montgomery and
> Chester Counties, handle traffic pretty well, but the segments of PA-3
> in the city of Philadelphia are a slow and congested urban arterial with
> lots of traffic lights.
It depends on where you're going. I do it fairly often, traveling from Gulph
Mills to University City; it takes just about as long as Rte 23 and is
faster than Lancaster Avenue. In fact, headed inbound, it's faster than 23.
Headed outbound, no so much because of the congestion in Upper Darby. As I
said, the part of Route 3 in the city (Walnut Street westbound, Chestnut St.
eastbound) is indeed slow and congested, but so is every other
non-expressway road out of the city. The main point, it seems, is that there
IS no good alternative to the Schuylkill. All the more reason for PennDOT to
revive efforts to improve the Expressway.
Scott M. Kozel
Yes, that is what I have argued, that there is no good alternative to
the Schuylkill Expressway, and that it needs to be widened.
Nick C
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
essex9999 wrote:
> Agreed. Aside from the problems you mention, there is a lack of both left
> and right turn lanes. Drive in the right lane, and you're sure to get stuck
> behind somebody turning into a parking lot (and taking their own sweet time
> about it, too). Drive in the left lane, and you'll certainly end up sitting
> behind someone who's turning left ... who didn't bother to signal until he
> had already stopped at the intersection, of course!
Amen to that!
Those turning into parking lots have to go slow because the lots are
old and the driveways narrow and constricted. Indeed, the "lots" are
more of a driveway with a few parking spaces in them, often all filled
up.
Many motorists use the parallel Montgomery Ave which is a little better
in that it doesn't have the traffic turning in/out of stores and
parking places.
There is now a big fight in Ardmore about redevelopment. Some people
support it, some don't.
Some of the old Main Line towns along Lancaster Ave have seen better
days.
FWIW, last year they tore down the ex-Howard Johnson's diner (Villanova
Diner). I thought it was doing well and was well located near the Blue
Route but I guess the land was worth more than the food. (I found this
out the hard way when I planned to meet a friend there for dinner and
we show up to a big hole in the ground. Ended up eating in a dumpy
pizza joint a block away.)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> In the mid-1970s, PennDOT did study and program projects for 6-lane
> widening on the Schuylkill Expressway between I-476 and US-1 City
> Avenue. It was feasible, but alas, they have never been built.
But a major rebuild of the road was done. For instance, a new ramp
elimianted a right-to-left shift at the City Line Ave interchange and
the ramps and shoulders along the road were all improved. There wasn't
enough room to add more lanes, but they did definitely make
improvements.
> It wouldn't take much additional right-of-way to widen the Schuylkill
> Expressway to 6 or 8 lanes, west of US-1 City Avenue.
Where is the land gonna come from? It seems the expressway is pretty
tightly hemmed in now.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > In the mid-1970s, PennDOT did study and program projects for 6-lane
> > widening on the Schuylkill Expressway between I-476 and US-1 City
> > Avenue. It was feasible, but alas, they have never been built.
>
> But a major rebuild of the road was done. For instance, a new ramp
> elimianted a right-to-left shift at the City Line Ave interchange and
> the ramps and shoulders along the road were all improved. There wasn't
> enough room to add more lanes, but they did definitely make improvements.
Less than 2 miles of the Schuylkill Expressway was upgraded in that
mid-1970s project. The Roosevelt Expressway interchange was improved,
and one lane each way was added on the Schuylkill Expressway between
Roosevelt Expressway and Montgomery Drive.
The "major rebuild" of the whole Schuylkill Expressway in the 1980s
involved rehabilitation of the pavement, shoulders and bridge decks,
much of which was literally falling apart by then. However, the highway
was not widened.
> > It wouldn't take much additional right-of-way to widen the Schuylkill
> > Expressway to 6 or 8 lanes, west of US-1 City Avenue.
>
> Where is the land gonna come from? It seems the expressway is pretty
> tightly hemmed in now.
There is very little development within a couple hundred feet of the
highway, west of US-1 City Avenue.
I have Xeroxed plan sheets from a PennDOT preliminary engineering study
to widen part of the Schuylkill Expressway. These were from a 1975
study, and I copied them from PennDOT when I worked there. The project
would have widened the 4-lane (2 lanes each way) highway to 6 lanes (3
lanes each way), between US-1 City Avenue and I-476, a distance of 8
miles, at a cost of $100 million (It was programmed for a few years in
the PennDOT 12-Year Improvement Program). Completing that project would
have meant that there would be 6 or more lanes on I-76, between I-476
and I-676, a distance of 13 miles. The design would have added a lane
each way on the outside of each roadway, keeping the existing median
width, installing a Jersey Barrier in the median, and adjusting
interchange ramps. Most of it would have involved fairly routine cuts
and fills, with some utilization of retaining wall in the large cuts and
fills. The one major complication was the Manayunk railroad viaduct
near Belmont Avenue. Rather than reconstruct the railroad viaduct, the
highway would have been horizontally "cocked" to reduce the skew between
the highway and the railroad viaduct, so that 6 lanes would fit
underneath with each directional roadway passing through a span
opening. A parallel westbound I-76 Pencoyd Viaduct would have been
built on the river side of the existing Pencoyd Viaduct (which would
become the eastbound roadway), and some of the piers would have been in
the river, and due to the topography, it would have been almost twice as
long as the existing highway viaduct, and with piers almost twice as
high. Six lanes would have been a big improvement, and still would be a
big improvement today. That is the only officially planned widening
project for the Schuylkill Expressway that I know of. If PennDOT had
built that project, they could have easily extended the 6-lane widening
from I-476 to the Pennsylvania Turnpike at King of Prussia.
Toggle
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> I have Xeroxed plan sheets from a PennDOT preliminary engineering study
> to widen part of the Schuylkill Expressway. These were from a 1975
> study, and I copied them from PennDOT when I worked there. The project
> would have widened the 4-lane (2 lanes each way) highway to 6 lanes (3
> lanes each way), between US-1 City Avenue and I-476, a distance of 8
> miles, at a cost of $100 million (It was programmed for a few years in
> the PennDOT 12-Year Improvement Program). Completing that project would
> have meant that there would be 6 or more lanes on I-76, between I-476
> and I-676, a distance of 13 miles. The design would have added a lane
> each way on the outside of each roadway, keeping the existing median
> width, installing a Jersey Barrier in the median, and adjusting
> interchange ramps. Most of it would have involved fairly routine cuts
> and fills, with some utilization of retaining wall in the large cuts and
> fills.
<snip>
Seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do would be to ban trucks
over a specific GVW from 0500 to 1000 and 1500 to 1900 weekdays and (to
NW) from 1100 to 2100 on Sundays. No need for a ban on Saturdays at
the present.
This would offer trucking companies the opportunity to make reasonable
alternative plans for the movement of goods at off-peak times while at
the same time keeping capacity free for single-occupancy vehicles and
buses during peak times. It would allow movement to and from the Port
of Philadelphia and the two main bridges.
This could be a win-win for the trucking companies, who are aware that
there are negative perceptions associated with moving freight on
concrete. They'd get good public relations out of it.
It could also be good for the region, which would not be subject to
trucks moving slowly down what is, in essence, a canyon, and pumping
out PM 2.5 and PM 10 (particulate matter of 2.5 microns and 10 microns,
two of the biggest causes of asthma) during rush hour.
I'm all in favor of containers-on-rail and beltways, but in the absence
of facilities which can trans-ship using those modes, then time
restrictions are the next best alternative.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do would be to ban trucks
> over a specific GVW from 0500 to 1000 and 1500 to 1900 weekdays and (to
> NW) from 1100 to 2100 on Sundays. No need for a ban on Saturdays at
> the present.
>
> This would offer trucking companies the opportunity to make reasonable
> alternative plans for the movement of goods at off-peak times while at
> the same time keeping capacity free for single-occupancy vehicles and
> buses during peak times. It would allow movement to and from the Port
> of Philadelphia and the two main bridges.
>
> This could be a win-win for the trucking companies, who are aware that
> there are negative perceptions associated with moving freight on
> concrete. They'd get good public relations out of it.
Truckers already avoid the commuting peak hours as much as possible.
The Schuylkill Expressway is paralleled by one of the highest capacity
mainline railroads in the world, the mainline of the former Pennsylvania
Railroad which runs generally close to the US-30 corridor.
The Philadelphia area is well-served by that and other freight railroad
lines.
There are plenty of origins and destinations for trucks along the I-76
corridor and its freeway spurs (US-1 Roosevelt Expressway and I-676 Vine
Street Expressway) in the city of Philadelphia and New Jersey.
The I-76 Schuylkill Expressway is the only east-west freeway through the
city of Philadelphia; and even though it runs more northwest-southeast,
I-95 in the city of Philadelphia runs generally perpendicular to the
Schuylkill Expressway, southwest-northeast for I-95.
As such, the I-76 Schuylkill Expressway is far too important of a
freeway to consider any restrictions on truck traffic on that highway.
Ben Johnson
> "Toggle" <vesu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do would be to ban trucks
>>over a specific GVW from 0500 to 1000 and 1500 to 1900 weekdays and (to
>>NW) from 1100 to 2100 on Sundays. No need for a ban on Saturdays at
>>the present.
>>
>>This would offer trucking companies the opportunity to make reasonable
>>alternative plans for the movement of goods at off-peak times while at
>>the same time keeping capacity free for single-occupancy vehicles and
>>buses during peak times. It would allow movement to and from the Port
>>of Philadelphia and the two main bridges.
>>
>>This could be a win-win for the trucking companies, who are aware that
>>there are negative perceptions associated with moving freight on
>>concrete. They'd get good public relations out of it.
>
>
> Truckers already avoid the commuting peak hours as much as possible.
>
> The Schuylkill Expressway is paralleled by one of the highest capacity
> mainline railroads in the world, the mainline of the former Pennsylvania
> Railroad which runs generally close to the US-30 corridor.
>
> The Philadelphia area is well-served by that and other freight railroad
> lines.
No. The former Pennsy railroad mainline between Philadelphia and
Harrisburg is now owned by Amtrak and used almost exclusively for
passenger service, not freight. From 30th Street Station (built as
Philadelphia's Penn Station but always referred to as 30th St for
clarity) to Philadephia's western suburbs (Thorndale specifically),
SEPTA and Amtrak share the four track mainline. It is either the only
or one of the very few electrified tracks in the country that aren't
part of the northeast corridor or commuter/regional rail systems.
The electrification isn't heavily used currently, but is being
upgraded from old Pennsy 1930s era stuff to modern wiring suitable for
high speed rail. High speed trains (formerly called Acela Regional)
will eventually connect Harrisburg and Philadelphia, including a new
stop at MDT Airport (Harrisburg Int'l.)
Freight trains from Philadelphia to points west go more indirectly by
using Norfolk Southern's line to Reading thence to Harrisburg (formerly
Reading RR) over a completely different route. The original
Pennsylvania Railroad had a separate freight track of its own (the Enola
low grade branch) that was a small engineering marvel in its time due to
its lack of grades.
Unfortunately Conrail abandoned it in the early 1990s. There was talk
of resurrecting it so the very busy Reading RR freight route could be
used for passenger service during the day (one option for SEPTA's
Schuylkill Metro non-project), but I believe this has been deemed too
expensive. A shame that such a vital piece of infrastructure was just
tossed away 15 years ago.
>
> There are plenty of origins and destinations for trucks along the I-76
> corridor and its freeway spurs (US-1 Roosevelt Expressway and I-676 Vine
> Street Expressway) in the city of Philadelphia and New Jersey.
>
> The I-76 Schuylkill Expressway is the only east-west freeway through the
> city of Philadelphia; and even though it runs more northwest-southeast,
> I-95 in the city of Philadelphia runs generally perpendicular to the
> Schuylkill Expressway, southwest-northeast for I-95.
>
> As such, the I-76 Schuylkill Expressway is far too important of a
> freeway to consider any restrictions on truck traffic on that highway.
>
Agreed. The Interstate shouldn't have been built in a park right next
to the river with that geography in the first place. It was advertised
as a parkway! Unfortunately there's nothing we can do about that
decision now.
Toggle
> Truckers already avoid the commuting peak hours as much as possible.
>
> The Schuylkill Expressway is paralleled by one of the highest capacity
> mainline railroads in the world, the mainline of the former Pennsylvania
> Railroad which runs generally close to the US-30 corridor.
>
> The Philadelphia area is well-served by that and other freight railroad
> lines.
>
> There are plenty of origins and destinations for trucks along the I-76
> corridor and its freeway spurs (US-1 Roosevelt Expressway and I-676 Vine
> Street Expressway) in the city of Philadelphia and New Jersey.
>
> The I-76 Schuylkill Expressway is the only east-west freeway through the
> city of Philadelphia; and even though it runs more northwest-southeast,
> I-95 in the city of Philadelphia runs generally perpendicular to the
> Schuylkill Expressway, southwest-northeast for I-95.
>
> As such, the I-76 Schuylkill Expressway is far too important of a
> freeway to consider any restrictions on truck traffic on that highway.
<snip>
Scott -
Your post covers too many well-reasoned points for me to excise
anything. Bear in mind that my experience is almost exclusively with
the California Department of Transportation (as a user and aficionado),
and with PennDOT and the PTC when my rental rubber meets the road.
Disclaimer aside, my comments:
1) Diesel emissions, particularly PM 2.5 and PM 10, are deadly.
Diesel also emits other noxious gases, but from what we see in our
community (at the hub of I-710 and I-5 freeways and not one but TWO
container rail yards), there is a huge increase in disease. The only
way to get that out of the way is to keep diesel engines moving as
quickly as possible, ideally during off-peak hours.
I'm sure we agree that it's in OTR drivers' and trucking companies'
best interests to schedule trips to miss major cities during the
commute. However, the span of commute hours is growing wider based on
the economics of using the road system more wisely - regular auto
drivers seek less-busy times to go to work and often employers will
accommodate them. Trucks are going to get stuck someplace. It might
be the NJT, Newark, Trenton, Philadelphia, or Wilmington - but the
chances area that a driver is, through a combination of number of hours
on road and, required rest stops, and the luck of the commute draw,
going to get stuck in traffic somewhere. It shouldn't be Philadelphia.
2) Philadelphia is indeed blessed by a tremendous rail system which
complements the expressway/freeway system and can move freight even
more efficiently - but diesel-electric locomotives pollute freely and
the railroads are for all practical purposes a) exempt from emissions
controls and b) can use high-sulfur fuel. Even if you can get four
locomotives to pull an express UPS train through town, you're still
getting a significant amount of emissions. Were the old Pennsy GG-1
electric locomotives passenger-only (think they were...) or were they
geared to pull freight as well?
In conclusion, nobody is going to come out "carbon-neutral" on this
issue. I know that if Los Angeles County and Orange County can't
decide when to coordinate widening of the same freeway (I-5) and to how
many lanes, then three or four states plus multi-state jurisdictions
like DVRPA and Amtrak aren't going to be able to figure out how to
react to the results of restructions on heavy GVW vehicles during the
worst drive times.
Clark F Morris
Rail is being included in the emissions reduction. The GG-1s were
definitely used in freight service and when the Pennsylvania was
running the railroad, most freight east of Harrisburg was electrified
on mainline routes owned by the PRR including the Morrisville cutoff
(bypassed Philadelphia and there were other freight only electrified
routes. The peculiarities of the AMTRAK laws, various charges and
changes in routing doomed the use of electric power.
It would be interesting to find out how many bridges would have to be
raised (or tracks lowered) to accommodate electrification or
re-electrification on the heavy routes including the Alameda corridor.
Toggle
Clark F Morris wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2006 17:24:13 -0700, "Toggle" <vesu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rail is being included in the emissions reduction. The GG-1s were
> definitely used in freight service and when the Pennsylvania was
> running the railroad, most freight east of Harrisburg was electrified
> on mainline routes owned by the PRR including the Morrisville cutoff
> (bypassed Philadelphia and there were other freight only electrified
> routes. The peculiarities of the AMTRAK laws, various charges and
> changes in routing doomed the use of electric power.
>
> It would be interesting to find out how many bridges would have to be
> raised (or tracks lowered) to accommodate electrification or
> re-electrification on the heavy routes including the Alameda corridor.
<snip>
Well, you generate your power at the source (locomotive) or a distance
(power plant using any type of fuel). There's some cost to the
environment regardless of where the power comes from. If the Alameda
Corridor was NOT built with the thought of future electrification in
mind, the easiest way out is to not change anything. Remember, LA
County is the place where the Airport Line doesn't run to the airport.
But they're studying it.
This goes right back to the supply-and-demand question for use of the
Schuylkill. I believe diesel fuel is taxed differently at least in
part because of the impact its users make on the road system. This
would be a case for time-sensitive tolling for everybody, which again
is a complete political non-starter. And what constituency won't have
its toes trodden on depending on the solution selected?
The cost of gasoline is going to make a big difference in the number of
vehicles driving on any freeway system at any given time: the numbers
are going to stop growing (best case) and will drop (saddest state for
the country).
Occam's razor solution to making best use of the Schuylkill Expressway:
don't use it.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Toggle wrote:
> I'm sure we agree that it's in OTR drivers' and trucking companies'
> best interests to schedule trips to miss major cities during the
> commute. However, the span of commute hours is growing wider based on
> the economics of using the road system more wisely - regular auto
> drivers seek less-busy times to go to work and often employers will
> accommodate them.
Changing U.S. lifestyles have added a tremendous amount of traffic to
the roads. Rush hours last much longer than before, and their are
"rush" shopping and vacation times. I-76 in Phila is often jammed at
times other than the traditional rush hours. Friday nights, for
example, are horrible until rather late.
During the quietest off peak hours the road is messy with maintenance
work (as I found out the hard way sitting stuck in an unexpected jam
very late at night).
> Trucks are going to get stuck someplace. It might
> be the NJT, Newark, Trenton, Philadelphia, or Wilmington - but the
> chances area that a driver is, through a combination of number of hours
> on road and, required rest stops, and the luck of the commute draw,
> going to get stuck in traffic somewhere. It shouldn't be Philadelphia.
Very true.
> 2) Philadelphia is indeed blessed by a tremendous rail system which
> complements the expressway/freeway system and can move freight even
> more efficiently - but diesel-electric locomotives pollute freely and
> the railroads are for all practical purposes a) exempt from emissions
> controls and b) can use high-sulfur fuel. Even if you can get four
> locomotives to pull an express UPS train through town, you're still
> getting a significant amount of emissions.
I believe railroads will soon be subject to sulfur and emissions
controls, too. In any event, railroads are far more fuel efficient and
thus create less pollutants than the equivalent truck engine moving the
same freight.
> Were the old Pennsy GG-1
> electric locomotives passenger-only (think they were...) or were they
> geared to pull freight as well?
The Pennsylvania Railroad GG-1 electric locomotives were used in both
freight and passenger service. An added air pollution bonus was the
electric engines could and did use hydro power or nuclear power. Even
when using fossile fuel the stationary power plants could have powerful
scrubbers and burn fuel at hotter temperatures than a moving engine
could.
However, even with trains moving freight over long distances, they
still must be delivered to the end customer's door and that still is
done by truck in many cases. Those trucks are on the roads.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Toggle wrote:
> are going to stop growing (best case) and will drop (saddest state for
> the country).
It's not just population growth generating traffic, it's lifestyle
changes.
First, most couples today have the wife working when in the past she
stayed home. That's another commuter on the road.
A by product is service travel during rush hours that used to be done
off peak. That is, the wife or husband will stop off for food, dry
cleaning, etc., en route home, adding to congestion because they can't
do it during the daytime.
A great many families are split. That means kids are being driven back
and forth between their parents.
Kids drive now. Kids used to take the school bus, including for after
school activities. Now kids have jobs and projects (sports, music,
etc) after school and drive themselves or get driven to them. Lots of
extra driving. On soccer days, my whole area is congested with people
coming/going to the soccer fields then out to eat, etc. This often
combines with evening rush hour. Saturday mornings are a nightmare.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Toggle wrote:
>
> > Were the old Pennsy GG-1
> > electric locomotives passenger-only (think they were...) or were they
> > geared to pull freight as well?
>
> The Pennsylvania Railroad GG-1 electric locomotives were used in both
> freight and passenger service.
I saw and heard them in operation when I lived in Devon in the
mid-1970s, about 3 blocks from the PRR mainline. I think that there
were a couple other electric locomotive types utilized for freight
trains, also.
It was a strange sensation to be in the house and to hear all of the
track sounds of a long freight train approaching at speed, passing, and
then receding, but to hear no engine sound at all (the engine sound was
tiny compared to the track sounds). After having lived near railroads
that had only diesel locomotives (non-electrified railroads), it sounded
like an "engineless" freight train.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> I saw and heard them in operation when I lived in Devon in the
> mid-1970s, about 3 blocks from the PRR mainline. I think that there
> were a couple other electric locomotive types utilized for freight
> trains, also.
At that time the main freight electric engine was the E-44, a big box
like thing. There were some other units as well.
For a variety of reasons, Conrail discontinued using electric
locomotives to haul freight. Wire atop freight-only lines has been
removed though some remains for power lines.
> It was a strange sensation to be in the house and to hear all of the
> track sounds of a long freight train approaching at speed, passing, and
> then receding, but to hear no engine sound at all (the engine sound was
> tiny compared to the track sounds). After having lived near railroads
> that had only diesel locomotives (non-electrified railroads), it sounded
> like an "engineless" freight train.
One of the advantages of electric trains. Unfortunately, from the
railroad's point of view (not necessarily society's) electric engines
were not as economical as diesel electrics. The cost of maintaining
overhead wire and substations was high. The cost of running modern
efficient diesel engines went down while the cost of electricity went
up, especially in the Phila-NYC area. The merger into Conrail meant
freights went over routes that weren't electrified and that would
require either engine changes (very costly and inefficient) or
installing wire on those other tracks.
Returning to the main issue of truck traffic relief, today railroads do
best operating over a long haul with blocks of cars originating and
terminating at the same place. Assembling a variety of single cars
from dispersed locations then delivering them likewise is costly. We
might be able to remove long haul trucks from I-76 via rail, but the
trend is for trailers to arrive at a central rail yard and be delivered
locally by road truck. That road traffic will not go away. Only the
larger shippers can economically operate their own direct freight
sidings. Some small sidings for single car load lots still exist but
they're rare.
If you look at an old industrial city district, you'll see abandoned
rail sidings in many places to serve individual factory buildings or
"team tracks". One of the big changes Conrail was able to do after
Penn Central was to either abandon such small loads or charge true
rates for them. The PC had to run lots of tiny local freights (an
engine and a few cars) which was very expensive. That's still done
occasionally now but not like before.
Scott M. Kozel
> > track sounds of a long freight train approaching at speed, passing, and
> > then receding, but to hear no engine sound at all (the engine sound was
> > tiny compared to the track sounds). After having lived near railroads
> > that had only diesel locomotives (non-electrified railroads), it sounded
> > like an "engineless" freight train.
>
> One of the advantages of electric trains. Unfortunately, from the
> railroad's point of view (not necessarily society's) electric engines
> were not as economical as diesel electrics. The cost of maintaining
> overhead wire and substations was high. The cost of running modern
> efficient diesel engines went down while the cost of electricity went
> up, especially in the Phila-NYC area. The merger into Conrail meant
> freights went over routes that weren't electrified and that would
> require either engine changes (very costly and inefficient) or
> installing wire on those other tracks.
At the peak, only 1% of the national mainline railroad mileage was
electrified, and most of that was in the Northeast Corridor between
Washington and New Haven CT, and in the PRR mainline between Harrisburg
and Philadelphia (which connected to the NEC).
I recall when the Trenton Cut-Off was electrified. That was the PRR
high-speed freight bypass of Philadelphia.