Register
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 174
  1. #1
    BarryG is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Philly
    Posts
    5,971

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

    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?

  2. #2
    mixiboi's Avatar
    mixiboi is offline Philly Remixed
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lawncrest
    Posts
    8,177

    Default

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

    Record $20 Million Gift to Help Finish the High Line Park
    Graphic Designer, Social Media Consultant. Twitter: @Sdlaugh

  3. #3
    eldondre is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,869

    Default

    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
    "It has shown me that everything is illuminated in the light of the past"
    Jonathan Safran Foer

  4. #4
    BenDee is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    BarryG is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Philly
    Posts
    5,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mixiboi View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    thoth's Avatar
    thoth is offline I LOOK LIKE THIS
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cedar Park
    Posts
    4,261

    Default

    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

  7. #7
    raider.adam is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    14,347

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    Pitt is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    783

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    MariusPontmercy's Avatar
    MariusPontmercy is online now poor grad student
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Cedar Park
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    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.
    "imagination and memory are but one thing, which for diverse considerations hath diverse names" - Thomas Hobbes

  10. #10
    Naveen is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    East Falls
    Posts
    1,598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BenDee View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    FMT
    FMT is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    415

    Default

    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.

  12. #12
    BarryG is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Philly
    Posts
    5,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FMT View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    raider.adam is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    14,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BarryG View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    eldondre is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raider.adam View Post
    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?
    "It has shown me that everything is illuminated in the light of the past"
    Jonathan Safran Foer

  15. #15
    gren's Avatar
    gren is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Walnut Hill
    Posts
    2,168

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by eldondre View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    BenDee is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eldondre View Post
    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?

  17. #17
    eldondre is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BenDee View Post
    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?
    "It has shown me that everything is illuminated in the light of the past"
    Jonathan Safran Foer

  18. #18
    raider.adam is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    14,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eldondre View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by gren View Post
    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?

  19. #19
    gren's Avatar
    gren is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Walnut Hill
    Posts
    2,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raider.adam View Post
    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.

  20. #20
    raider.adam is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    14,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gren View Post
    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?

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2