City Branch: Why expand transit when you can have an $80M park?

**BarryG** · 02-12-2012, 09:12 PM

You can't make this stuff up anymore. At least the Reading Viaduct has no infrastructure value.

VanMeter has reimagined the remnants of the Philadelphia & Reading Railway as a path where pedestrians and cyclists (and maybe even fashion models) could travel without ever crossing a street....

Just two years ago, VanMeter and friend Liz Maillie dreamed up the plan for the old line's underground portion, which is known as the City Branch.

"You get this really neat soaring and submersive atmosphere," vanMeter said as he looked at the roughly 30-foot-high walls that surround much of the City Branch. He's calling the project ViaductGreene.

VanMeter estimates that turning the entire three-mile space into a park could cost $80 million, but he says the development could be done in stages, and so could the fund-raising. He and Maillie have started a nonprofit to take donations, and the project has become almost a full-time job for vanMeter.

Link: To reclaim an old railway from above and beneath

Also, isn't a viaduct elevated by definition?

**mixiboi** · 02-12-2012, 09:48 PM

80 million? Psh, IT cost WAY more for the High Line:

Record $20 Million Gift to Help Finish the High Line Park

**eldondre** · 02-12-2012, 10:17 PM

i found the article to be sad. we dont need a dedicated right of way parallel to the parkway? we dont need rapid transit to fairmount? yeah lets just turn it all into a park. we should turn 1234 market into a vertical park

**BenDee** · 02-12-2012, 10:20 PM

The Reading Viaduct park idea I understand, and whole-heartedly support. City branch? Not at all - 1) There is already plenty of green space nearby, unlike the Viaduct area 2) Nobody wants to travel underground for 3500 feet, especially when there will likely be few others around.

While I would personally like to see it used for transit again and understand I have that bias, I cannot fathom why they think people would want to bike under there.

**BarryG** · 02-12-2012, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by mixiboi

80 million? Psh, IT cost WAY more for the High Line:

Record $20 Million Gift to Help Finish the High Line Park

Well the original High Line cost estimates were $40M according to this article, so this tunnel could end up costing twice as much. Would that make us cooler than New York? THE ART NEWSPAPER - NEWS

Converting usable transit infrastructure into parks is the height of the absurdity of High Line envy.

**thoth** · 02-12-2012, 10:51 PM

Not that this plan isn't moronic, but maybe one need not get inflamed by every word that dribbles out of a "professional gardener"s mouth

**raider.adam** · 02-12-2012, 11:13 PM

The non-profit is filed with the IRS, but Guidestar doesn't have any 990 forms reported for them. Non-profit is also based in Wyomissing.

**Pitt** · 02-12-2012, 11:13 PM

I'm glad I'm not the only one missing the appeal of this proposal. I support the Reading Viaduct park project, but who wants to hang out underground? It sounds like a nasty way to spend a couple hours, like hanging out in the subway concourses. It would be fouler after people got to it than it is now with them locked out.

**MariusPontmercy** · 02-12-2012, 11:47 PM

It would make a cool museum space I think. You could showcase Philadelphia's industrial past. Bring in some antique locomotives. The light coming in from the ceiling vents and the size of the tunnel would be pretty cool. Now all that would require probably hundreds of millions to seal the tunnel from the elements and make it into a usable space, so it won't happen and probably rightfully so. Every cool idea shouldn't be done necessarily. It was built as a transit tunnel, it makes the most sense to continue to use it as such.

**Naveen** · 02-13-2012, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by BenDee

The Reading Viaduct park idea I understand, and whole-heartedly support. City branch? Not at all - 1) There is already plenty of green space nearby, unlike the Viaduct area 2) Nobody wants to travel underground for 3500 feet, especially when there will likely be few others around.

While I would personally like to see it used for transit again and understand I have that bias, I cannot fathom why they think people would want to bike under there.

My feelings exactly. The lack of rail transit within city limits is woeful. So much of the city is only served by bus, and yet we have the infrastructure for more rail throughout.

And that thing would have to be seriously well it and get some heavy traffic for it to be safe.

**FMT** · 02-13-2012, 11:50 AM

If it ended up being some sort of light rail with a paved recreational path next to it, I'd be all for it. That ditch is an eyesore and anything would beat it's current state. The article describes a scenerio where SEPTA would continue to own it and potentially be able to do something with it down the road.

**BarryG** · 02-13-2012, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by FMT

If it ended up being some sort of light rail with a paved recreational path next to it, I'd be all for it. That ditch is an eyesore and anything would beat it's current state. The article describes a scenerio where SEPTA would continue to own it and potentially be able to do something with it down the road.

right SEPTA is going to tear up an $80M park.

**raider.adam** · 02-13-2012, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by BarryG

right SEPTA is going to tear up an $80M park.

Yeah. We have a town that people freak over building on a $10,000 mural on private property.

**eldondre** · 02-13-2012, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by raider.adam

Yeah. We have a town that people freak over building on a $10,000 mural on private property.

if there's $80 million for a park, how much light rail does that buy?

**gren** · 02-13-2012, 12:42 PM

I'd prefer transit over a park. I just think the issue is we're very unlikely to get transit. I'd love to see a public investment in a very bare-bones greenway that leaves room for transit service and any extra would be paid for privately. I do think a greenway has value, though.

Originally Posted by eldondre

if there's $80 million for a park, how much light rail does that buy?

If you take the 2007 cost of Baltimore's Red Line at 1.6 billion for 14 miles. Making too many assumptions to count that would be $320 million for 3 miles. Obviously rolling stock purchases are not proportional to length but this is the best completely unfounded estimate I could come up with.

**BenDee** · 02-13-2012, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

if there's $80 million for a park, how much light rail does that buy?

I bet it could almost be enough for a system that hooks into the trolley tracks at 11th/12th & the viaduct, running up/down those streets through Center City and possibly South Philly. Westward running through the trench and under Pennsylvania Ave until 29th. A little bit more money, and it could hook into the Girard St. trolley and head West along the 15 route. Run new 80 foot elongated low floor trolleys on it, like this one:

Anyone know the cost for a 2 mile light rail line where the rails don't (for 90%+ of the line) need to be integrated into the road, and the ROW is already in place?

**eldondre** · 02-13-2012, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by BenDee

I bet it could almost be enough for a system that hooks into the trolley tracks at 11th/12th & the viaduct, running up/down those streets through Center City and possibly South Philly. Westward running through the trench and under Pennsylvania Ave until 29th. A little bit more money, and it could hook into the Girard St. trolley and head West along the 15 route. Run new 80 foot elongated low floor trolleys on it, like this one:

Anyone know the cost for a 2 mile light rail line where the rails don't (for 90%+ of the line) need to be integrated into the road, and the ROW is already in place?

if I were going to run light rail in south philly in mixed traffic it would be the 47 not the 23. that said, let's just stick with cc to girard. if it runs trolley gauge, it coudl connect, as you point out, to the existing trolley network. why not have it run up/down 13th connecting to the el and ssl at juniper station, some time later, the connection can be buried and the trolleys run through. is there a new trolley project built in existing right of way that we could look at?

**raider.adam** · 02-13-2012, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

if there's $80 million for a park, how much light rail does that buy?

Would seem it may be better for the park system if you have better transit to the already existing big park we have as opposed to another park that needs startup and funding?

Originally Posted by gren

If you take the 2007 cost of Baltimore's Red Line at 1.6 billion for 14 miles. Making too many assumptions to count that would be $320 million for 3 miles. Obviously rolling stock purchases are not proportional to length but this is the best completely unfounded estimate I could come up with.

I am not familiar with the Red Line. Were they reusing existing infrastructure and ROWs for it?

**gren** · 02-13-2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by raider.adam

I am not familiar with the Red Line. Were they reusing existing infrastructure and ROWs for it?

I don't think there's much ROW acquisition. It uses Franklin/Mulberry/40 out west, tunnels downtown, and then uses Boston St. in Canton. The tunnel will be very expensive. The rest is new infrastructure on the road/median. Philly should be cheaper to build track for by the mile but costlier per mile for rolling stock acquisition would be my guess.

**raider.adam** · 02-13-2012, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by gren

I don't think there's much ROW acquisition. It uses Franklin/Mulberry/40 out west, tunnels downtown, and then uses Boston St. in Canton. The tunnel will be very expensive. The rest is new infrastructure on the road/median. Philly should be cheaper to build track for by the mile but costlier per mile for rolling stock acquisition would be my guess.

What type of stock would it use? Would it be regional rail trains? BSL?