Greening the Elevated by PennPlanning

GREENING THE

ELEVATED

Greening The Elevated was created as a project for PennDesign’s City and Regional Planning Studio, Fall ‘16. Studio Members Pee Agyei-Boakye Liz Colletti Lyndon DeSalvo Madeleine Helmer Simon Kassel Miles Owen Lauren Payne Riley Gavin Taves Kate Webb Instructors Ariel Ben-Amos Danae Mobley

Acknowledgments: Paula Conolly, Coordinator, Green Infrastructure Leadership Exchange Thomas G. Dallessio, President & CEO, Next City Kathryn Drake, GSI Design, Philadelphia Water Neil Gagliardi, Director of Urban Design, NYC Department of Transportation Erik Johanson, Director of Innovation, SEPTA John Landis, City and Regional Planning Chair, PennDesign Liz Lankenau, Planning & Research, Philadelphia Water Theo Lim, PhD Candidate, University of Pennsylvania Shanta Schachter, Deputy Director, New Kensington CDC Elizabeth Svekla, Green Infrastructure Planning Group, Philadelphia Water Erin Williams, Stormwater Billing and Incentives, Philadelphia Water

INTRODUCTION

ELEVATED

03 04 05 06 07 08

TYPOLOGIES PROCESS

SITE 1: MFL EAST

SITE 2: 25TH STREET VIADUCT

SITE 3: I-95 LOWER SOUTH

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

Executive Summary Elevated transportation structures are a common sight throughout Philadelphia. Cutting through industrial areas, commercial districts, and neighborhoods, they effectively serve the purpose of moving people and goods from one location to another. This single-minded focus results in an elevated system that largely ignores the surrounding communities. Whether this neglect helps or hinders the community is less important than the fact that the opportunities presented by these elevated structures is being wasted. With green stormwater infrastructure, these elevated transportation structures can be activated in ways that encourage economic development, strengthen the environment, and build up communities. To start this process of integrating green stormwater infrastructure into the elevated structures, a full assessment of both elements was required. Since these infrastructure systems are drastically different from each other, this assessment served to not only classify the elevated into specific typologies, it also helped identify areas where green infrastructure could potentially affect elevated structures. This allowed for three different sites to be developed which covered areas of economic, environment, and social opportunities.

Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Many older urban areas utilize combined sewer systems to manage their sewage and stormwater runoff, but these aging systems cause pollution in local waterways when stormwater runoff exceeds the capacity of the sewer system. The Clean Water Act led to the creation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which established a national approach for controlling combined sewer overflow (CSO) events from combined sewer systems (CSS). As a city that still relies on its combined sewer system for stormwater management, the City of Philadelphia must abide by NPDES regulations. Philadelphia has three Water Control Treatment Plants (WCTPs) that are operated by the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD). Each of these plants has its own NPDES permit issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), which allows for the discharge of pollutants from the CSO to the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers, and to the Cobbs, Pennypack, Tacony, and Frankford Creeks. There are additional water quality requirements for these discharges which can be met by pre-treatment or runoff reduction.

Green Infrastructure

To remain in accordance with PADEP, every Pennsylvania city with a CSO has developed a long term control plan (LTCP) demonstrating how they would meet their water quality standards. For its 2009 LTCP, Philadelphia initially considered the construction of large storage tunnels that could capture nearly 85% of the runoff during a rain event and slowly discharge water into the system to be treated. These tunnels would have cost $8 billion and would have taken 25 years to be constructed with the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing budget. As a city where many of the neighborhoods have experienced disinvestment and struggle with poverty and health issues, justifying investments in infrastructure without ancillary benefits requires added effort for public support. The City chose instead to dedicate its resources to a green infrastructure-oriented approach, targeted at reducing stormwater runoff in the watershed.

Gray Infrastructure Figure 1 Gray versus green infrastructure | Source: PWD

Green City, Clean Waters Philadelphia’s new approach to stormwater management was essentially an extension of the City’s Integrated Watershed Management Plans (IWMP), an existing program to address water quality throughout the city. To build off these ongoing efforts, and to acknowledge that addressing stormwater is not a high priority for everyday citizens, the City decided to design a plan utilizing a triple bottom line approach. This strategy would create a working atmosphere where the efforts of PWD would provide, economic, social, and environmental benefits to the communities that receive infrastructure investments. This updated LTCP is known as the Green City, Clean Waters which deploys a joint effort of reducing and pretreating runoff through the use of Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI).

Figure 2 Green City, Clean Waters | Source: PWD

Green City, Clean Waters has completed the first five years of a 25 year long plan. The plan has largely focused on City-owned land, with streamlined approaches developed for the design, partnerships, and implementation of green stormwater infrastructure projects in parks, schools, and other public spaces. While PWD has seen many successes with these public programs to date, the department’s does not have a solid framework for addressing private property and other public spaces. Of the total land area for which the City is responsible for managing stormwater runoff, private entities own and manage a large majority. In light of the current trend to reassess the possibilities around underutilized spaces, like abandoned viaducts, PWD has requested an investigation into the elevated structures throughout the City to tap into large swaths of land maintained by a single owner.

GOALS

-85% Stormwater pollution

$2.4B Investment over 25 years

STATUS

1.5B Gallons of stormwater diverted annually

1,100 GSI SMPs installed

Save $5.6B in stormwater infrastructure costs

Triple Bottom Line Benefits Though the primary role of GSI is to manage a city’s stormwater, the projects have additional ancillary benefits. PWD has adopted a Triple Bottom Line approach meaning that it evaluates stormwater projects not just based on water retention but on broader environmental, economic and social outcomes.

Environmental

GSI can have positive impacts on the environment beyond retaining and cleaning stormwater. Greening parts of the city improves air quality by removing particulates and ozone from the air. GSI projects can also be used to create wetlands and restore ecosystems.

Economic

GSI has proven to be a driver of economic development. The construction and maintenance of stormwater management projects is a source of green jobs. The addition of GSI to neighborhoods may also lead to increased local property values and increased activity on a business corridor.

Social

GSI can bring social benefits by creating public green space to provide recreational opportunities and improve quality of life. Green infrastructure is proven to have a positive impact on public health and it provides shade and insulates buildings, lessening the impacts of urban heat islands and reducing energy costs.

GSI

Environmental

•Improve air quality •Save energy •Offset climate change •Restore ecosystems

Economic

•Generate green jobs •Neighborhood transformative effects

Social

•Enhance recreational opportunities •Community quality of life •Reduce urban heat island

The Price of Water The graphic below illustrates how stormwater costs vary accross the United States. Stormwater costs have continued to rise, underscoring the importance of stormwater management. Philadelphia has the highest poverty rate (greater than 25%) of any of the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 10 largest cities. Limiting stormwater fees can provide relief to financially burdened Philadelphians.

Figure 3 Water fees nationwide | Source: Circle of Blue

12 2

ELEVATED

13 3

Initially, green stormwater infrastructure and elevated transportation infrastructure may seem to operate at cross purposes. Green infrastructure draws inspiration from the environment. It works with topography, using peaks and valleys to channel water. It takes advantage of the natural filtration abilities of plants and soils. As greened acres expand and connect, they retain and clean more and more water. On the other hand, the Elevated defies topography to create flat surfaces for cars and trains. It paves over plants and soils. It becomes more effective as green spaces shrink, its capacity increasing with each additional lane of impervious surface. Given these tensions and oppositions, developing a handbook for the green management of stormwater along the Elevated is challenging. However, several qualities of elevated structures create unique opportunities and special benefits for GSI projects located nearby.

Why the Elevated? The Elevated is Ubiquitous Elevated structures are extremely common throughout Philadelphia and in cities across the country. In Philadelphia, nearly every planning district contains a stretch of elevated freight, passenger rail, or highway. PWD’s “Green Toolbox” contains protocol for eight kinds of structures and properties. However, while PWD has already installed projects near elevated transportation corridors, the Department does not yet have a toolbox that addresses the specific concerns, constraints, and possibilities of developing GSI near elevated structures. Because these structures are so widespread, PWD will unavoidably encounter more of them in the near future as it pursues the goals of Green City, Clean Waters. Developing a Green Elevated Toolbox therefore anticipates an inevitable challenge, and helps streamline projects by equipping PWD planners with tailored strategies.

PWD’s Original “Green Toolbox” • • • • •

Green Streets Green Schools Green Public Facilities Green Public Open Spaces Green Industry, Institutions, Commerce, & Business • Green Driveways & Alleys • Green Parking Lots • Green Homes Figure 4 I-95 elevated highway in South Philadelphia

The Elevated is Strategic In its first five years, GCCW focused on City-owned properties, streets, and rights-of-way (ROW) in order to green as many acres as quickly as possible. This approach has been remarkably successful: at the most recent count, PWD has greened 837 acres at 441 sites, reducing pollution from stormwater runoff by 1.5 billion gallons a year. For the next five years, however, GCCW set an ambitious target of 2,148 greened acres by 2021. In order to obtain enough land to meet the target on time, PWD will need access to different kinds of properties and spaces than those it used in Phase I of the plan. Concentrating on elevated structures could help unlock the large amounts of land PWD needs for Phase II of GCCW. Just a few major entities- CSX, SEPTA, PennDOT- own the structures themselves and often some adjacent land. The fewer parties and owners involved, the simpler the processes of obtaining permissions, assembling parcels, and establishing maintenance routines and responsibilities. Figure 6 The Market Frankford Line in Northeast Philadelphia

Additionally, these owners have wide impact. Whereas even important institutions like the universities and hospitals tend to own large parcels in just one or two neighborhoods, a transportation agency like SEPTA or a company like CSX have properties all across the City.

Figure 5 25th Street Viaduct in South Philadelphia

The Elevated is Exciting

The Elevated is Challenging

Elevated structures have captured the imaginations of designers, planners, and the public in recent years. The opening of the High Line in New York City spurred cities all over the world to look at their elevated structures in a new light. Rather than thinking of the Elevated as prosaic transportation infrastructure- or, worse, as blighted eyesores- people now see them as full of potential.

Many elevated structures in Philadelphia pose substantial threats to the environment in general and water quality in particular. Freight rail lines carrying tons of crude oil run along the banks of the Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers and through residential communities, and they pass sensitive marshlands. Runoff from highways is highly contaminated with gasoline, automotive chemicals, heavy metals, and other pollutants. While SEPTA has installed some rain barrels and other green interventions at select stations,most runoff still drains off the structures via pipes onto the ground untreated and unfiltered.

This shift in perspective has inspired numerous design challenges and charettes, scholarly papers, blog posts, and magazine articles. In 2015, for example, New York City’s Design Trust for Public Space published Under the Elevated, a report asserting that the Elevated “represents an untapped public asset that has the potential to radically transform New York’s urban fabric”(Design Trust) The Design Trust compiled dozens and ideas for various “under-el” spaces across New York City.

The environmental challenges of the Elevated- sensitive locations, polluted runoff, basic or unfiltered drainage systems, and impervious surfaces- warrant special attention to mitigate the impact of elevated structures on the City’s waters.

Excitement about the Elevated has taken hold in Philadelphia as well. The decades-long dream of turning the Reading Viaduct, an abandoned rail segment just north of Center City between Broad Street and 9th Street, into a linear, elevated public park has become reality. In late 2015, Center City District (CCD) announced that the State of Pennsylvania’s Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (RACP) had awarded the Rail Park a $3.5 million grant (Center City District). In the summer of 2016, the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society (PHS) operated a Pop-Up Garden at the base of the Viaduct. Between the state grant, support from the City, public awareness motivated by the Pop-Up Garden, and private fundraising, CCD was able to break ground on Phase I of the park in October 2016.The forthcoming Rail Park has placed the spotlight on Philadelphia’s Elevated like never before. PWD can leverage the momentum surrounding the redevelopment of spaces above, below, and beside elevated structures to build new partnerships, access new funding sources, and draw new attention to green infrastructure. Figure 7 Outfall into the Potomac River | NRDC

The Reading Viaduct Rail Park For decades, the Reading Viaduct lay abandoned and unused. This disused rail structure formed a formidable barrier between Center City to its south and the struggling Callowhill neighborhood to the north. The rusty and vacant trestles stood among formerly industrial buildings. However, a small group of dedicated Callowhill residents saw promise in the Viaduct. A meadow grew on the abandoned railbed and the views of Center City appealed to those who discovered it. Residents spearheaded the idea of an elevated park, years before the celebrated New York High Line broke ground.

The transformation of the Reading Viaduct does not stop with a path above the trestle. Designs have been advanced for the areas underneath it as well. These designs explore the exciting possibilities for turning generally utilitarian spaces into creative places of community pride.

CASE STUDY

Figure 8 Rendering of possible under-el design at the Reading Viaduct | Friends of the Rail Park

The Elevated is Visible Hundreds of thousands of people live near elevated structures in Philadelphia, and thousands more travel over them by car or by train every day. People wait at elevated platforms along the MarketFrankford Line or cross underneath I-76. Elevated structures can be found in diverse neighborhoods, from Chestnut Hill to Cobbâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Creek to Holmesburg. They run over busy commercial corridors in the Northeast and across the active industrial landscapes in the South. They are intimate parts of Philadelphiansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; daily lives. This visibility opens up an opportunity for PWD to reach out to different communities across the City and to educate widely about the environmental, social, and economic benefits of green stormwater management. In locations where the spaces along the Elevated are perceived negatively, as dangerous or dirty, GSI that adds aesthetic value will be appreciated. In places where elevated structures function as barriers between neighborhoods, GSI that buffers bike lanes and sidewalks from auto traffic to increase connectivity will be valued. PWD can use a Green Elevated program not only to meet its goals for greened acres, but to increase public buy-in to GCCW, build relationships with diverse communities, and recruit new stewards and advocates for the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s waterways. The archetypal example of the urban elevated structure is a passenger rail viaduct, especially an abandoned one. The High Line in New York City or the Reading Viaduct in Philadelphia fit this mold, for instance. However, in order to survey, map, and analyze the opportunities for GSI along the Elevated, a more precise, rigorous, and objective definition of elevated structures became necessary. The task of defining elevated structures is not as easy as it seems. Many structures, such as bridges, share certain characteristics with rail trestles and above-ground rapid transit but would not conventionally be lumped together with the likes of the Reading Viaduct. Ultimately, the definition advanced by this report excludes several related structures in order to emphasize the space above, below, and beside the Elevated in addition to the physical structures themselves.

Figure 9 CSX elevated rail in University City

Defining the Elevated Bridges A bridge conveys a transportation corridor like a road or rail line over a barrier such as a hill, a river, or an intersection with another road. Like elevated structures, bridges may be supported by trestles, pillars, or beams and may be raised above the level of the ground. However, bridges generally have little usable, unoccupied space beneath them. Additionally, bridges span limited obstacles; the majority of the corridor they carry is at-grade and the elevation is just temporary.

Low Berms

Figure 11 The Benjamin Franklin Bridge | Newsworks.org

Berms are linear earthen mounds that slightly elevate roads and railways above the surrounding landscape. Unlike bridges, berms usually do carry long sections of the corridor. However, berms do not have any space beneath them at all.

Figure 10 A low berm along SEPTA Regional Rail | Trainweb.org

Decks Decks are the top platform of a tiered structure with two or more levels. For example, in Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Society Hill neighborhood, several blocks of the street grid are supported by decks over I-95 A deck may have substantial space underneath it, including roads or even pedestrian concourses. However, these structures are rectangular rather than linear and do not carry unified transportation corridors.

The Elevated The Elevated is a linear structure that carries a transportation corridor above the ground over a significant portion of the corridorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s length. Although in practice there might not be vehicle or pedestrian access to the space beneath the structure (because of a fence or other barriers), there is at least some usable space beneath the structure between the ground and the bottom of the decking.

Figure 12 A Proposed Deck over I-95 near Pennâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Landing | DRWC Hargreaves Asso-

History of the Elevated Elevated structures have a long and contested history. On the one hand, they have been powerful drivers of population and economic growth. Throughout the 19th century in the U.S., the path of the rail lines determined where towns would grow and flourish and where they would not. By the dawn of the 20th century, trolleys and commuter trains linked burgeoning suburbs to city centers, enabling workers to live in new communities farther from the urban core. Highways built in midcentury helped quicken the flow of freight and people regionally and nationally and accelerated the pace of suburbanization. On the other hand, the construction of the Elevated has also been disruptive and destructive at times. The same commuter rail lines that helped create new suburban communities also facilitated White Flight and population loss in inner cities. Highways might have enabled goods and travelers to get to their destination faster, but they often bulldozed through established, vital neighborhoods. Elevated structures often enabled people to use more polluting and resource-heavy modes of transportation, like single-occupancy vehicles on highways, or to ship hazardous cargo great distances, like crude oil on freight trains. Any project that focuses on the Elevated must grapple with this complex past.

Figure 13 Highway Interrupting the Urban Fabric | NYCStreets.com

TYPOLOGIES

Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s elevated transportation structures carry rail and automobile traffic, connecting the city internally between its neighborhoods and externally to the wider region and country. These corridors exist throughout the city with 21% of the city area lying within a quarter mile of an elevated structure and 39% within a half mile. This area of impact represents a significant portion of Philadelphia. Although these areas of the city share a proximity to elevated structures, the experience adjacent to elevated structures varies. Each of these freight rail, passenger rail, or highways results in a fundamentally different experience for the nearby resident. Furthermore, the structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s frequency of use, its age, quality, and size will have a great impact upon the pedestrianâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience beside and passing through the structure. A citywide analysis of the elevated structures enables practitioners to assess the character of the structure, and analyze the opportunities and constraints for certain green infrastructure practices.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ELEVATED STRUCTURES

Citywide, Philadelphia has 289 miles of highway while the elevated highways make up 39 miles (16%) of that. On the other hand, elevated passenger rail occupies 32% of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 95 miles rail, which amounts to 30 miles. Freight rail in Philadelphia spans 124 miles, and includes 21 miles of elevated structures. With about 40% of Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population living near elevated structures, 620,135 people are in these neighborhoods. These communities within close proximity to elevated structures generally display a higher poverty level and lower standard of living compared to Philadelphia.

Nearby Census Tracts Census Tracts (w/in Quarter Mile) City Limits

1.25

Figure 14 Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau

2.5

5 Miles

Elevated transportation corridors are dispersed throughout Philadelphia. The majority of the elevated passenger rails are located in North and West Philadelphia. In addition, an abandoned corridor, Lehigh viaduct, is in the northeastern part of Philadelphia. Running from North Philadelphia to South Philadelphia, highways span from West Philadelphia across the city to the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers. Average adjacent parcel size around elevated corridors in northern Philadelphia is less than 3,823 square feet as opposed to southern Philadelphia which is more than 3,823 square feet. While crossing water bodies occasionally, adjacent land use of the elevated corridors is predominantly residential and industrial. On the border of West Philadelphia and North Philadelphia where there is the intersection of the Schuylkill river, freight rail and highway, the adjacent land is used for parks. Commercial land uses are intermittent dispersed.

Infrastructure and SMPs An elevated structure presents constraints and opportunities for green infrastructure projects. These constraints and opportunities vary based on the characteristics of the elevated structure and the urban fabric beside and beneath it. The use, the adjacent urban fabric, and the space below an elevated structure are all important criteria to consider when siting SMPs in Philadelphia. Generally, elevated structures in Philadelphia are over 10 feet tall and are used multiple times in a day. However, there are varying features in terms of structural characteristics and conditions. Apart from the design of the structure, the age and maintenance culture of the structure contribute to the structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attributes.

Above - Below - Beside

Figure 24 The East Branch of the MFL

The characteristics of the elevated structure can be classified within a framework of Above, Below, and Beside. Above refers to the function of the structure, its width, frequency of use, condition, and other characteristics of the activity occurring on the structure. Below includes aspects relating to the environment underneath the structure, including light levels and passage through. Beside includes the environment immediately adjacent to the structure, including the land use and density of structures (insert chart of the framework).

Philadelphia Near an Elevated Structure Figure

Figure 18Per-

Figure 16Within a 1/4 Mile of

Figure 2230

Figure 1921

Figure 17Within a 1/2 Mile of

Figure 2355

Fig-

Figure 15 25th Street Viaduct in South Philadelphia

Above The purpose of of the elevated corridor, as a railway for passengers or freight or a highway for vehicles, affects its frequency of use. Passenger rail tends to run more frequently than freight rail. Also, passenger rails connect neighborhoods which provides an opportunity to serve a network of GSI projects when connected. Elevated transportation corridors with a high volume of pedestrian and passenger traffic provides a large public base for education about stormwater management. Due to water sewage management issues, ownership of the structure largely determines the extent to which GSI can be implemented. Corporate organizations who usually have an interest in sustainability are more likely to invest in such a venture as it provides an opportunity to add on to their work.

Below Low light in the elevated corridor makes growth of vegetation difficult, as opposed to an elevated corridor with ample lighting. This determines the type of plants grown and furthermore the sustainability of GSI projects in such areas. Difficulty in crossing underneath the structure due to large width size or lack of passage are considerations when implementing GSI since that affects accessibility to the structure and future maintenance potential.

Figure 25 Characteristics above the structure, as in the MFL West (top), and beside the structure, as in the 25th Street Viaduct (above)

Beside Projects beside the elevated can serve as an opportunity to leverage GSI implementation based on the proximity of boundaries. Land use adjacent to elevated rail structures in Philadelphia is mostly industrial and residential, resulting in intermittent vacancy trends and lower density interface near the elevated structures. These provide more avenues for GSI implementation.

Figure 26 Characteristics vary above, below and beside elevated structures. Near Pennypark Park in northeast Philadelphia (top right) varies from an area adjacent to the 25th Street viaduct (left) and a section of MFL West (above right)

BESIDE Land Use

Commercial

Industrial

61st and Walnut

12th and Wood

Adjacent Land Use

Residential

Water

Commercial

Parks

Industrial

Vacant

Culture/ Recreation

Civic/ Institutional

1.25

2.5

5 miles

56th and Walnut

Figure 27 Land Use within one block of elevated structure; Source: Philadelphia City Planning Commission

BESIDE Parcel Size

11th and Wood

Average Adjacent Parcel Size (sf)

Walnut and 31st

Small

Medium

708 - 1,924 1,924 - 3,823 3,823 - 12,310 12,310 - 21,867 21,867 - 50,287 50,287 - 1,088,012 0

1.25

2.5

Figure 29 Average parcel size adjacent to elevated structures; Source: Philadelphia City Planning Commission

5 miles

FDR Park

Large

ABOVE Use of Structure

Passenger Rail

Freight Rail

York-Dauphin Station

University of Pennsylvania

Elevated Structures by Type Passenger Rail Freight Rail Highway Abandoned Rail

Highway

1.25

2.5

5 miles

I-95

Figure 31 Elevated Structures by Type in Philadelphia; Source: Philadelphia City Planning Commission

BELOW

LIGHT Light levels underneath the viaduct will impact the vegetation choices

PASSAGE Passage under the structure will affect accessibility to the structure and future maintenance.

I-95 near FDR Park

Light

USE UNDERNEATH Current uses under the structure should be considered or integrated into designs for green infrastructure. Front and Race Streets

Skate Park

Passage

Use Underneath

PROCESS

The prior analysis of Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s elevated transportation networks provided a refined understanding of the scope, character, and condition of the railways and highways that dissect the city. Notably, each structure spans multiple neighborhoods; 39% of the city is within a half mile of elevated structures, reinforcing the broad reach of these networks. Given the amount of land proximate to each structure, it became apparent that further assessment was required to select impactful intervention sites that would maximize the triple bottom line (environment, economy, and social systems). To accomplish this goal, several indices were developed that visually illustrate the environmental, economic, and social vulnerability in Philadelphia. Each map illuminates hotspots of vulnerability across the city, highlighting potential green stormwater project sites. The following section describes each index and the rationale behind the selection process.

Environmental Vulnerability Index Variables: - Impervious land cover. Greater amounts of impervious cover are negatively weighted. - Riparian buffer zone. Areas closer to riparian buffer zones are rated as more vulnerable to water related environmental stressors. - Tree cover. The less tree cover in an area, the higher the environmental vulnerability. - Watershed ranking. This variable is derived from the Philadelphia Water Department, ranking watersheds throughout the region. Healthier watersheds are rated as less vulnerable. - Depressions with high water flow volume. A combination of flow accumulation, topography, and street network data that illustrates low points throughout the city that are susceptible to flooding. - Brownfields. Areas that are designated as brownfields per EPA are ranked as more vulnerable.

Site Selection:

Legend South_I95

Type of Elevated Structure

Philadelphia Hydrology

Environmnetal Score

Utilizing the environmental vulnerability index, the Southern portion of I-95 was selected as a target intervention zone. Because of the quantity of impervious coverage in the Stadium District, proximity to the Schuylkill River, and the presence of Franklin Delano Roosevelt Park, this site poses a unique environmentally sensitive case study that can benefit from investment in green stormwater infrastructure.

Economic Vulnerability Index Variables: - Vacant lots. The more vacant lots in an area, the greater the economic vulnerability in the area. - Median household income. Areas with lower median household incomes are ranked as more economically vulnerable. - Poverty rates. Higher poverty rates by census tract correlate with greater economic vulnerability in the index. - Building quality. Using the licensing and inspection database for Philadelphia, this index ranks areas with poorer building quality as more economically vulnerable. - Unemployment rate. High unemployment rates by census tract are ranked as vulnerable. - Rate of Uninsured. The greater the rate of uninsured residents in an area, the greater the level of vulnerability.

Site Selection: According to this studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic index, the area around the 25th Street viaduct is one of the most vulnerable areas in the city. The 25th Street viaduct, running through several depressed communities, presents an opportunity for economically impactful green stormwater infrastructure projects.

Legend 25thStViaduct

Type of Elevated Structure

Philadelphia Hydrology

Economic Score

Socioeconomic Vulnerability Index Variables: The socioeconomic index combines economic vulnerability with social vulnerability variables. The following list highlights the four social vulnerability variables. - Vulnerable population groups. The vulnerable groups include children, elderly, teen mothers, disabled residents, and those with less than a high school education. Census tracts with larger proportions of vulnerable group are ranked as having greater socioeconomic vulnerability. - School ranking. This variable is derived from the Great Philly Schools organization, ranking schools throughout the region. Areas with worse schools are considered more vulnerable. - Community access to city resources. This variable combines the presence of recreation centers, pools, parks, and other community resources to create one variable. Areas with more access to resources are considered less vulnerable. - Health indicator. Areas with greater rates of disease are designated as more socioeconomically vulnerable.

Legend East MFL

Site Selection:

Type of Elevated Structure

Philadelphia Hydrology

1.25

:2. 30 71 7

Lo w

H ig h

:3 .0 63 62

Final Normalized Score

2.5

5 Miles

Building off of the economic vulnerability index, and adding social vulnerability variables, this analysis illustrates that the area surrounding the SEPTAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Market Frankford Line in Northeast Philadelphia is particularly vulnerable to socioeconomic stressors. This site features the Lehigh Viaduct and several impoverished neighborhoods that provide for green stormwater investment opportunities that may benefit surrounding communities.

Final Selection Three elevated transit locations were selected, focusing on places of high environmental, social, and socioeconomic vulnerability. These sites serve as case studies to help draft preliminary proposals to simultaneously address neighborhood concerns and green storwmater infrastructure. The site at I-95 offers a unique change to address a high flood zone, the 25th Street Viaduct represents a opportunity to link communities and provide needed connectivity to stimulate economic development, and the Market Frankford Line in Northeast Philadelphia demonstrates the possibility of using green infrastructure to improve socioeconomic disadvantage. Further, care was taken to ensure that the selected sites also included a variety of typology structures, with I-95 being a major highway, the 25th Street Viaduct a freight rail, and the Market Frandford East as a high-traffic passenger rail.

I-95

25th Street Viaduct

Market Frankfrod East

SITE 1: MFL EAST

Placing green stormwater infrastructure along the elevated Market-Frankford Line in Kensington is a challenging proposition. Small lots, tight streets, limited space under the El, high vacancy, high poverty, and a struggling commercial corridor all come together to create a situation where green stormwater infrastructure is not a high priority. This reasoning misses the opportunities that green infrastructure can provide, and so the Market-Frankford Line in Kensington was chosen as the first site because it was a good place to illustrate the social and economic benefits of this type of infrastructure.

Site

The Marketâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Frankford Line (MFL) is one of two rapid transit lines owned and operated by the South-Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) in Philadelphia. It mostly runs east to west through Center City Philadelphia with a north-south section on its eastern side. On the western side, the MFL stops along Market Street at several locations throughout West Philadelphia with a final stop at the 69th Street Transportation Center in Delaware County. On the eastern side it travels almost all the way to the Delaware River before turning north and eventually reaching the Frankford Transportation Center in the Riverwards district of North Philadelphia. The selected study area is on the eastern side of the Market-Frankford Line in a neighborhood known as Kensington. This focus area also includes the intersection of the Lehigh Viaduct and the Market-Frankford Line

Figure 33 Aerial of the MFL East Study Area

Structure

Figure 34 Break in the commercial corridor along Kensington Avenue

Figure 35 Huntingdon Station

Walking along and underneath the MFL in Kensington is a remarkably diverse experience. On good weather days, the area is vibrant with people walking and stores bringing their wares out onto the sidewalk. This vibrancy jars with the obvious high levels of vacancy which creates visual gaps along the corridor and greatly detract from the pedestrian experience. Regardless of the store frontage, the one experience that unites the entire corridor is the presence of the El overhead. The shadows, noise, and physical presence of the structure itself continue along the entire subject area and although the design of the El varies slightly, it is always present.

support beams and concrete bed cover the entire structure and also where the El intersects the Lehigh viaduct. At this point, the El turns into a bridge that travels over the Lehigh Viaduct while Kensington Avenue continues underneath both structures.

The typology of the El is predominately a steel structure supporting a concrete bed upon which the railway itself is constructed. This style was the result of the reconstruction completed in 2003 and is designed to reduce noise and vibrations from the trains running overhead. In most areas along the focus area, the support structure extends out from the concrete bed a few feet on both sides and then connects to the vertical beams that go down to the sidewalk below. This typology changes around the stations where the steel

This combination of small lot residential areas with closely packed commercial corridors and a high level of infrastructure made planning green storm water infrastructure in this area difficult. In the end, a series of goals were developed that addressed a broad spectrum of issues ranging from the physical structure of the MFL to the social and economic conditions of the area. The four goals developed were creating a green corridor connecting community institutions, encouraging large landowners to develop infrastructure on their own with proactive financing programs, changing the minimum disturbance threshold to cover a wider range of construction projects, and in interacting with the public through engaging and information public education tools.

~ 30 ft Viaduct

~ 62 ft

~ 12 ft Sidewalk

~ 8 ft Parking lane

Figure 36 Average dimensions along the MFL East

Between buildings

~ 12 ft

Traffic lane

History

Context

Kensington is a neighborhood in North Philadelphia close to the Delaware River. Originally an industrial area, it transitioned in the late twentieth century to residential neighborhoods with commercial corridors along major streets. This transition was accompanied by a decline in the socio-economic status of the area and an increasingly racially mixed population. Along with this decline, the area around Kensington, and the Lehigh Viaduct became known as one of the biggest open air drug markets in the nation with easy access to heroin and other drugs.

Currently, the area is diverse with a population that is 56% Hispanic, 21% African American, and 36% White. These numbers vary from the city averages of 54% White, 44% African American, and 14% Hispanic. Kensington also has higher rates of poverty with 38% of the population under the poverty line as compared to 26% citywide.

1875 Philadelphia Atlas Source: Private Collection of Matthew Ainslee

Early 1800s Kensington transitioned from a predominantly fishing industry to iron and steel manufacturing

1830s The Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad extend a passenger line up Kensington Avenue

Several institutions have projects in the area, but the primary ones are the local government agencies and the New Kensington Community Development Corporation (NKCDC). The government agencies include the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, the Philadelphia Water Department, and the South-Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority which runs the subway. These agencies and organizations work with the Council offices of Maria D. Quinones-Sanchez and Mark Squilla on all transportation and green infrastructure projects in the Kensington area.

Figure 39Construction of the Market Frankford Line

1851 Founding of Episcopal Hospital on East Lehigh Avenue

1915 Construction begins on the elevated Market Frankford Line above existing railroad tracks

Figure 44 Race/Ethnicity in Kensington

Kensington Avenue (1960) Source: City of Philadelphia, Records

1922 After World War I delays construction, the Market Frankford Line is opened for service

View from Huntingdon Station (2016)

1950s Deindustrialization leads to population loss, economic decline, and abandonment of many factory buildings

1963 SEPTA is created by the Pennsylvania legislature

1990s Reconstruction of the MFL involves placing new stringers and deck on the original supports

Land Use in Study Area Land use in the focus area is dominated by the residential sections on either side of the MFL with commercial uses clustered in a line along Front Street and Kensington Avenue. Breaking up this urban fabric are large vacant and institutional lots which create visual pockmarks on both the maps of the area and on the ground while walking up and down the streets. These vacant lots are remnants of the industrial past of the area and of the current low socioeconomic status of the neighborhood. The institutional uses are mostly made up of several public and charter schools as well as the Temple University Episcopal Hospital located near Huntingdon Station.

MFL Study Area

Percent of Adjacent Land Cover

Land Use

Figure 46 MFL East Study Area Land Use Land Use Category

Park/Open Space

Commercial

Transportation

Industrial

Civic/Institutional

Vacant

Residential

Industrial

Civic/Recreation

Residential

Transportation

Commercial

Park/Open Space

Water Vacant

N 0

.125

.25

Figure 47 MFL East Study Area Land Use Map

.5 Miles

Land Cover 1/4 Mile from Structure Land cover maps also reflect the built-up nature of this neighborhood with a majority of the area covered in impervious surfaces such as buildings and roads and a much smaller percentage of the area covered in pervious surfaces such as grass and shrubs. The figure on the right depicts a band analysis performed to categorize the land cover radiating out from the elevated structure at 1/20 mile intervals up to 1/10 of a mile. Each bar graph below shows the percentage of that type of land cover in each band.

Buildings

Grass/Shrub

Roads/Railroads

Tree Canopy

s) ile s) m 5 ile ) 2 m es ) -. 2 - .2 mil iles . ( 5 ( .15 - .15 .1 m es) il nd 4 .1 Ba nd 3 ( .05 5 m Ba nd 2 ( < .0 Ba nd 1 ( Ba nd Ba

Other Paved Surfaces

% landcover in band

Closest

Furthest N

0 0

Figure 48 MFL East Study Area Land Cover

.125

.25

Figure 49 MFL East Study Area Land Cover Distance Band

.5 Miles

Goal #1

ESTABLISH GREEN CORRIDORS

Establish green corridors that harness the momentum of existing investments and link to transit Figure

Figure 54 MFL East Existing Conditions

Figure 52Drainage on

Figure 53Limited Side-

Figure

Existing Conditions In Kensington, the Market Frankford Line runs down the middle of Front Street and Kensington Avenue. In many places, this creates a tightly packed corridor where the physical structure of the Line is just a few feet away from the fronts of the buildings. This proximity creates conditions that pose significant challenges to installing green infrastructure. These challenges include limited space on the roads and sidewalks to fit the infrastructure and less than ideal lighting conditions to sustain any vegetation. Other challenges that exist along the corridor include a high rate of vacancy which creates visual gaps in the corridor and the fact that the drainage pipes from the elevated structure drain directly onto the sidewalk. Although these conditions might appear daunting, they also present several opportunities to develop creative and highly effective green stormwater infrastructure.

ton

g sin

Ke Somerset

E. Lehigh

Huntingdon

York-Dauphin

d an

Front

rl be

m Cu W. N 0

Figure 56 Business corridor along the MFL

.125

.25

Figure 55 Potential green corridors in the MFL East study area

.5 Miles

Projects Because of the intensity of use along the Market Frankford Line, installing a large amount of green stormwater infrastructure in this corridor would not be very effective. Instead, it is much more effective to create a limited amount of infrastructure directly next to the Market Frankford Line, and then connect this infrastructure to a larger network of infrastructure that spreads throughout the community. Specifically, this green infrastructure would be planned in such a way as to connect different community institutions with a walkable and aesthetically pleasing green corridor. Green corridors are roads and trails that are environmentally friendly, aesthetically pleasing, and potentially socially powerful. By creating a string of green infrastructure such as rain gardens, street trees, and small parks, different areas can be connected in such a way that brings the community together. In Kensington, the placement of this corridor would be to connect Waterloo playground, Hunter Elementary, and York-Dauphin Station. This would enable the project to take advantage of the work going on at Waterloo playground and it would create a safe routes to school pathway for the students at Hunter Elementary. Since it connects with York-Dauphin Station, it would also provide a community amenity for people taking the Market Frankford Line.

Figure 60Modular Technologies Figure 58PWD currently has a standard tree trench system, however in areas like MFL where there are an abundance of laterals for utility connections along the commercial corridors, the system becomes unfeasible. Modular systems that require less space to treat the same amount of stormwater runoff and can easily avoid existing utilities, could be an impactful endeavor. Companies like GreenBlue Urban have designed systems like the ArborFlow which not only treat stormwater, but have high potential to mitigate flooding. The GreenBlue Urban also offers a Co-Funded Tree Pit trial which provides a municipality with design consultation, fully dimensioned CAD drawings, cost analysis, installation manual, and four hours of onsite installation training. Figure 59

Figure 57 Current conditions at Waterloo Playground

Great Streets Initiative Waterloo Playground

York-Dauphin Station Figure 61 A green corridor that connects Waterloo Playground and Hunter Elementary with York-Dauphin SEPTA Station

Storm water was managed at this site through a combination of rain gardens installed along the sidewalks, pervious paving in parking areas, small scale tree plantings, and increased sidewalk width which allows for more greens areas. During the implementation of these projects, one of the key lessons that was gained was how effective public opinion can be if it is used correctly. The designers and developers proactively engaged the public through social media and internet quizzes to quickly and accurately gain feedback on the different sections of the redevelopment. This feedback allowed for the designers to go from concept to construction documents in four months. Overall, the South Grand Boulevard Project showed how public engagement and education could lead to the creation of a green street system which encouraged community and commercial development. Source: Landscape Performance Series, South Grand Boulevard Great Streets Initiative

CASE STUDY

Hunter Elementary

In 2009, six blocks of South Grand Boulevard in St. Louis, Missouri was redeveloped with the goals of improving the pedestrian experience, enhancing safety, and providing opportunities for economic development. During the development of this project, community involvement was extensively used as a way for the designers to present different options and receive targeted feedback. Eventually the developers managed to take into account 40 different metrics that incorporated environmental, social, economic, and aesthetic considerations in creating a place that encouraged community building and economic development while also managing storm water.

Figure 62 Low height GSI | Kevin Robert Perry

2563 3392

2543 6325

5317.3 5157.2 3777 14093.7 18504.7

6287.2

3272.1

18504.7 14093.7

Based on assessments of the water drainage in the area, this project could capture around 178,600 square feet. Although this is a significant amount of storm water, the true benefits of a greened corridor lie in the community empowerment which would be created during the building of the corridor itself, and in the community building which would take place once the systems are in place. Local elementary students would also have a safe place to walk to school and community members of all ages can enjoy the newly created green spaces along the corridor.

1381.7 1254.2

4972.7

The vacant lots present a different challenge, and several opportunities. The openings they leave along the Market Frankford Line and in the community might look forlorn, but the spaces they present multiple opportunities for community building. Examples of

Impact

16215.3

2556

10062.3 5579.5

2604 3056.4

15741.6

5803 7290.5 4818.6

To manage the lack of space, small scale and low impact green stormwater infrastructure is prioritized. Examples of this include bioswales that use low height plants and modular tree trenches which can be placed next to important infrastructure without damaging that infrastructure. These low impact infrastructures will also have minimal impacts on the businesses along the commercial corridor itself because they would take up less parking spaces and would not limit views of the businesses themselves.

8077.3

The primary challenges that this project would face include the limited space under and around the Market Frankford Line as well as the large amounts of vacant land in the area. This lack of space limits the size and type of infrastructure that can be placed and the vacant land creates visual gaps which detract from the walking experience and represent missed opportunities for more community engagement.

13966.2

Implementation

Figure 63 Drainage analysis for the green corridor project

Existing Conditions Goal #2

TARGET LARGE LANDOWNERS

Advance GSI application by large landowners through targeted marketing and a restructured incentives program SMIP Stormwater Management Incentives Program • • • •

began in 2012 non-residential properties awards limited to $100,000 per greened acre average project time: multiple years

GARP Greened Acre Retrofit Program • • • •

began in 2014 aggregation of multiple properties typically greater than 10 acres average project time: 6 - 18 months

The Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) offers a variety of incentives to private landowners who are looking to decrease the amount of impervious cover on their properties or incorporate GSI from the outset. Businesses that opt to install a green roof are eligible for the Green Roof Tax Credit, which provides a rebate for 50% of the cost of installation up to $100,000. The Philadelphia Zoning Code also rewards green roofs and green buildings with a Density Bonus, allowing for increased floor-area ratio (FAR) or building height depending on the circumstances. As of 2016, PWD awards over $10 million annually in GSI grants. The department first offered grants in 2012 with the establishment of the Stormwater Management Incentives Program (SMIP). SMIP awards up to $100,000 per greened acre for non-residential properties within Philadelphia. Applicants to the program must be the property owner, PWD customer, or tenant that has explicit permission from the property owner. During its first year, SMIP allocated $3.5 million of the $5 million available. In 2014, PWD expanded the grants to include the Greened Acre Retrofit Program (GARP) and increased the annual budget allocation to $10 million. GARP is intended for GSI projects that total at least 10 acres and are spread across multiple properties within the combined sewer area. Aggregators applying for GARP are the direct recipients of the funding and must receive permissions from property owners for project implementation. While only two years into GARP, PWD is looking to increase its competitiveness by addressing some of the real and supposed barriers that prevent more companies from applying. The Sustainable Business Network (SBN) in Philadelphia has determined that the pre-development costs are often significant enough to deter applications since there is no guarantee of funding and, even if awarded, the grant amounts are variable. Additionally, aggregators have found that the return on investments is often not high enough to outweigh the risk unless maintenance contracts are incorporated into the projects. Many large landowners are also unlikely to move on GSI projects when the monthly stormwater fee is minimal as compared to their business operations.

Figure 64 Popi’s Restaurant used a SMIP grant to install a rain garden

Policy Recommendations

g sin

Somerset

E. Lehigh W. Huntin gd

Huntingdon

York-Dauphin

rla

e mb Cu W.

rk Yo

hin

In the MFL East context, there is the opportunity to demonstrate that the charter schools are well-situated for a GARP grant. Brightside Academy has 23 locations throughout the City and, if selected, an aggregator could coordinate with one contact versus the multiple property owners usually associated with GARP. Additionally, PWD could pre-approve a couple designs that are then recycled throughout all school locations, cutting down on the upfront time usually required as part of the approval process.

ton

E. Cambria

By improving the resources available to businesses and aggregators, PWD could better market GSI benefits. The public affairs division within the department could create ready-made packets specific to those land uses that are common and spread throughout Philadelphia. For example, in the context of the MFL East, two large landowners include the Brightside Academy and Sankofa Freedom Academy Charter School, which share a city block. GSI can benefit charter schools by reducing the stormwater fee, offering naturebased learning opportunities, and providing active play space that also manage stormwater. Working with the Community Design Collaborative, PWD has already developed preliminary designs for many of the schools within the Philadelphia School District in its Transforming Philadelphia’s Schoolyards report. The designs could be adapted by independent charter schools to lower initial design costs.

E. Indiana

Front

In order to advance the installment of GSI by large landowners in Philadelphia, PWD could consider more targeted marketing and a slight restructuring of the grants program. Currently, many large landowners are not motivated to install GSI simply for the reduction in their monthly stormwater fees. While the ancillary benefits of GSI are known, they have not always been monetized, which is a necessary step for many businesses to make a change from day-today operations. In Force of Nature: The Unlikely Story of Wal-Mart’s Green Revolution, Edward Humes demonstrates that even such companies as Wal-Mart are beginning to understand that green practices equate to a better bottom line. In addition to the economics, GSI can be marketed based on its benefits to employees, customers, and other users as green space.

N .125

.25

.5 Miles

Figure 65 Large landowners adjacent to the MFL that are well-suited for PWD’s grant program. The Brightside Academy and Sankofa Freedom Academy Charter School (dark green) could benefit from a GARP grant that incorporated additional Brightside Academy campuses to reduce monthly stormwater fees, provide children active play spaces, and allow a single point of contact for the project aggregator. The Temple University Hospital - Episcopal Campus (light green) could significantly reduce it’s impervious cover and improve patients’ access to green space.

GARP Barriers

Recommendations

PRE-DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR AGGREGATOR

BIFURCATE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

By bifurcating design and construction costs, PWD can allow applicants to request design funding to cover more of the pre-development costs.

HIGH RISK FOR LITTLE RETURN

CREATE STANDARD FOR MAINTENANCE CONTRACT

Maintenance contracts are beneficial to aggregatorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; profit margins and a standardized contract would simplify proceedings for new recipients.

MARKETING TO LARGE LANDOWNERS

TARGET OWNERS WITH MULTIPLE PARCELS

VARYING GRANT AMOUNTS

FIXED SQUARE FOOTAGE AWARD VALUE

Figure 67 Current conditions of Brightside Academy and Sankofa Freedom Academy Charter School

Targeting an owner with multiple, similar properties can cut down on communications costs and potentially the preliminary design necessary. A fixed award value per square foot would allow companies to better assess the total cost of the project from the outset.

Figure 66 The current parcel containing Brightside Academy and Sankofa Freedom Academy Charter School has an inactive street frontage, a large building footprint, and an expansive parking lot.

Figure 68 A reimagined plan includes a greened parking lot, downspout disconnection from the roof, and an active play area along Kensington Avenue. A SMIP or GARP grant from PWD could help the schools fund the improvements.

Policy Recommendations (continued) The Temple University Hospital - Episcopal Campus is the largest landowner within the study area and could use a SMIP grant to substantially reduce the amount of impervious surface on the parcel. Similar to schools, hospitals could greatly benefit from GSI implementation on top of stormwater fee reductions. Currently, there is a trend towards biophilic design in the healthcare industry as nature-based features have been proven to have positive impacts on the well-being of patients. Given the large number of hospitals and healthcare facilities in Philadelphia, PWD could prepare a packet of materials specifically aimed at GSI implementation for medical facilities, highlighting the multiple benefits.

Figure 70 A landscaped parking lot that manages stormwater at UPenn

Figure 69 A green schoolyard | Source: Next City

While these two examples within the study area offer a basis for suggested marketing strategies, PWD can expand materials to include a wider range of large landowners and business types. For example, creating a marketing packet geared towards religious institutions would also have wide applicability across the City. Given that many property owners are not located in Philadelphia or otherwise difficult to contact, it is important to include lessees of buildings in the marketing as physical improvements will also benefit their day-to-day and they can make requests directly to the owner.

Implementation As this is a recommendation internal to PWD, it is suggested that the department, and specifically the public affairs division, consider creating packets targeted at large landowners. PWD should begin by focusing on schools and hospitals, large land uses that would likely be more receptive to GSI given the benefits it can offer to both students and patients. Packets aimed at charter schools might include an overview of stormwater management and the grants program, a copy of Transforming Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Schoolyards for design ideas, and information on nature-based learning produced by PWD. In cases where one business owns multiple properties in Philadelphia, PWD could suggest applying to GARP with the help of an aggregator, explaining how cost savings could occur by implementing many similar projects.

GSI Certification PWD should work with the Philadelphia Department of Licenses & Inspections (L&I) to create a certification process for GSI professionals. Currently, the Sustainable Business Network (SBN) in Philadelphia offers classes for GSI training that are up to 75% discounted through its GSI Partners initiative. If L&I could certify graduates of the SBN program, PWD would be able to offer a refined list of certified GSI contractors to developers looking for trusted green infrastructure contractors. L&I already certifies professionals, such as plumbers and building inspectors, and it is recommended that GSI industry professionals are added to this list.

Impact Improved marketing to large landowners has the potential to increase the competitiveness of PWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grants program and increase GSI implementation on private land throughout the City. In this example, the proposed project at the lot containing Brightside Academy and Sankofa Freedom Charter School has the potential to manage 143,000 square feet of stormwater. On top of the stormwater managed, the project would also assist in the construction of a new playground and basketball court.

.4 61

8 2. 54 8.7 5 2 06 13

54462

52505

23251

Figure 71 Drainage analysis for Brightside Academy and Sankofa Freedom Academy Charter School

Existing Conditions Goal #3

LEVERAGE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT

Leverage development trends to maximize stormwater retention on private land

Philadelphia currently has stormwater regulations that require new construction and redevelopment projects of a certain size to manage stormwater on-site. If the project disturbs more than 15,000 square feet of earth, it is required by PWD to retain the first 1 inch of stormwater in a 24-hour event (equal to the 90th percentile storm). However, within the Darby and Cobbs Creek Watersheds, the regulations are stricter and require post-construction stormwater management for any project disturbing more than 5,000 square feet. Employing these post-construction stormwater management regulations ensures that new development assists PWD in meeting the goals outlined in Green City, Clean Waters.

Policy Recommendation Compared to other cities, the regulations are relatively relaxed within most of Philadelphia outside the Darby and Cobbs Creek Watersheds (see Figure 74). Minimum stormwater regulation thresholds in select cities. New development and redevelopment projects disturbing more land than the minimum square footage are required to retain a set amount of stormwater on site.” on page 62. By expanding the 5,000 square feet land disturbance policy to the additional watersheds within Philadelphia – particularly the Schuylkill, Delaware, and Tookany/Tacony-Frankford – PWD could ensure that even smaller developments contribute more directly to stormwater management. However, PWD has noticed that, even with the current threshold, smaller GSI projects on private land have been more likely to fail. In light of this, the department should consider offering an in-lieu payment for those projects disturbing anywhere between 5,000 and 25,000 square feet. The fee-in-lieu would be collected by PWD

Figure 72 New construction in Fishtown | Source: PhillyHomes

Stormwater Regulation Thresholds & Fee-in-lieu E. Indiana

ton

E. Cambria

g sin

Somerset

E. Lehigh W. Huntin gd

Municipalities have used these regulations to ensure that new development and reconstruction projects comply with city stormwater management goals. In Washington D.C., the stormwater regulation, updated in 2013, requires that projects disturbing more than 5,000 sf of land manage the volume from a 1.2 inch storm event. In addition to an innovative stormwater credits and trading program, the District has allowed a fee-in-lieu for property owners unwilling or unable to implement GSI on-site. In this manner, Washington, D.C. ensures that private development of a significant size is contributing to stormwater management through GSI, either on- or off-site.

York-Dauphin

Front

rla

e mb Cu W.

rk Yo

hin

Da 0

N .125

.25

.5 Miles

Figure 73 A policy change to lower the stormwater regulation threshold would affect the entire study area and all of Philadelphia.

POLICY

Huntingdon

As of 2016, many cities across the United States have instituted stormwater regulation thresholds that require new construction or redevelopment projects of a certain size to retain and manage a given amount of water during a 24hour storm event. Oftentimes, these regulations are based on minimum land disturbance, which denotes the square footage of earth that is physically disturbed during the construction process. If a stormwater regulation threshold was set at a land disturbance of 10,000 sf, a project must disturb that much land even if the overall parcel size is far greater than the minimum, say 40,000 sf.

Minimum Land Disturbance Thresholds Square Footage

1,0

2,5

5,0

0 7,0

00 15,

Atlanta Fairfax Co, VA

Washington, D.C.

Seattle

Philadelphia

Figure 74 Minimum stormwater regulation thresholds in select cities. New development and redevelopment projects disturbing more land than the minimum square footage are required to retain a set amount of stormwater on site.

How much greened acre potential can we gain by lowering the stormwater regulatory threshold?

Unlocked GA potential (acres)

Earth disturbance regulatory threshold (sf)

2,500 5,000 7,500

10,000 12,500

2011

2012

2013

2014

Figure 75 The above graphic represents conservative estimates based on total area of constructed buildings in Philadelphia over the last five years. The dashed white line corresponds with the proposed policy change to lower the minimum land disturbance threshold to 5,000 square feet across the City. Source | Philadelphia Office of Property Assessment

2015

Figure 76 A green roof on Paseo Verde Apartments in North Philadelphia | Urban Land Institute

Implementation Proposed Fee-in-lieu: While PWD will receive pushback from developers on lowering the minimum land disturbance threshold, it is a necessary step to ensuring that 1/3 of the 10,000 greened acres required by 2036 come from private development (as outlined in Green City, Clean Waters). A feein-lieu would also offer relief from the installation and maintenance of green infrastructure currently required of developers and future landowners. In order to get support from City Council for the policy change, PWD might consider using any fees-in-lieu generated within the same Council District whenever possible. Working with the community, Council Members could then assist PWD in siting projects that would both manage stormwater and provide the most community good. Private development in a Council District would thus help contribute to impactful local projects with social and environmental benefits. The policy change could be implemented as soon as next year assuming that there is councilmatic support.

Impact Based on conservative estimates (see Figure 75), PWD could expect to see anywhere from 5 to 10 additional greened acres from private development annually by lowering the minimum threshold. Given that the City is undergoing increased development, particularly in Center City and University City, the total annual gain is likely to increase over the coming decades.

$0.50 per Square Foot The proposed fee-in-lieu would cover approximately 10% of the total capital, construction, and management costs to PWD for GSI implementation. The figure is based on the average cost per greened acre on public land used by PWD in its estimates. The 10% annualized payment is the same model used by Washington D.C.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Department of the Environment.

Existing Conditions Goal #4

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Promote GSI education and outreach at transit stations

A junction near a passenger train provides opportunities to intercept many people. Elevated structures for passenger trains often have increased foot traffic beneath and around the stations, as passengers come through the station and wait on the platform, and pedestrians pass by on the busy business corridor below. Those waiting on a platform are a captive audience for quick and visually appealing educational material about stormwater management.

ton

g sin

Ke Somerset

E. Lehigh

Huntingdon

York-Dauphin

Front

rla

m Cu W.

Figure 77 SEPTA commissions public art for its train stations, as in the Spring Garden Station | SEPTA

Figure 78 SEPTA rail stations could.125 be used as opportunity sites.5for stormwater art 0 .25 Miles and education

Education and PWD

Education about stormwater management can inspire citizens to be stewards of their natural environment, and it can motivate local support for local GSI programs. A goal for the focus site is to capitalize on the high volume of pedestrians and train passengers to provide educational opportunities about stormwater management.

The Philadelphia Water Department partners with Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s schools to promote environmental education in the classroom. The Albert M. Greenfield Elementary School served as a pilot site for the Green City Clean Waters initiative in Philadelphia to integrate environmental education in public schools. In 2013 the U.S. Department of Education honored Greenfield as a Green Ribbon School, recognizing its efforts to engage students and community members with environmental education, while promoting healthier classrooms and saving energy costs. The school installed permeable pavers, native plant rain gardens, and stormwater management systems, and taught students about indigenous plants, stormwater runoff, and pollution. Since the successful pilot project, schools in Philadelphia have also installed green infrastructure and been honored in the Green Ribbon School program.

Green infrastructure may be a mechanism for introducing community members to their local natural environment, and influence the way that they see and interact with stormwater and vegetation. Urban environmental education programs, including Rock the Boat in the South Bronx, Urban Semillas in Los Angeles, and Urban Resources Initiative in New Haven, recognize the impacts that environmental education can have on a community. , Huntingdon station on the Market-Frankford Line receives an average 2,446 passengers every weekday. This is roughly half the volume of the average SEPTA train station, but Huntingdon is nonetheless the most-used train station in the focus area and a highly-visible node on the business corridor, at the intersection of five streets. This station is the chosen site of the fourth intervention for the Market-Frankford focus site, as a public art installation inspired by stormwater management. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) already has a program, called Art in Transit, for commissioning public art for bus and train stations. A piece of art was installed in Huntingdon station in 2007. We propose expanding upon this opportunity and including public art inspired by stormwater management at Huntingdon. Art that uses rainwater already exists in other contexts, including through the Bureau of Land Management in Portland and the Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education in Philadelphia.

In addition to curriculum development, the Philadelphia Water Department engages in public outreach through tours and public workshops. The Department provides tours and programs at the Fairmount Water Works, and a training program at Cobbs Creek Community Environmental Education Center. A mobile cart with educational material provides another method for staff to communicate the benefits and technologies of stormwater management.

CASE STUDY

Public Art Installation

Figure 79 Proposed Kinetic Stormwater Installation at Huntingdon Station

Implementation The kinetic sculpture installation would not capture very much stormwater, as it would collect stormwater from the Huntingdon Station roof. This amounts to approximately 1/10th of an acre. However, the impact of this sculpture would be more far-reaching, as it would encourage discussion about stormwater, and create interest in the voluntary Rain Check program offered by PWD. This installation would make stormwater a point of discussion.

Stormwater-focused Art Impact The Kinetic GSI educational sculpture will have a tripartite impact on the community. At once it will manage stormwater, beautify the street and educate the community about the benefits of stormwater. Though it will only manage a drainage area of 2,800 square feet, the multi-level display will hopefully foster community stewardship of stormwater management projects. This installation may serve as a model for future educational displays at transit stations citywide.

The Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education in Philadelphia installed “Rain Yard” by Stacy Levy, “an interactive artwork that mitigates stormwater runoff and educates visitors on the critical role soil and plants play in the water cycle” (Schuylkill Center website). The artwork aims to educate visitors about the water cycle and plants. It was funded in part by the Knight Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts, and is part of a larger initiative at the Schuylkill Center to develop artwork that “serves to protect the health of the ecosystem” (Schuylkill Center website)

CASE STUDY

Funding for this project could come from entities interested in educational public art, such as the Knight Foundation, National Endowment for the Arts, William Penn Foundation, Pew Center for Arts and Heritage. The New Kensington Community Development Corporation could be a partner in the design phase of the project, sourcing local artists or providing feedback. The project may take several years to fund and design, but once a proper design and implementation framework is developed this process could be streamlined and easily replicated at other stations around the city.

Summary Goals

Total contributing drainage area:

ESTABLISH GREEN CORRIDORS TARGET LARGE LANDOWNERS LEVERAGE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT

324,400 SF

PROMOTE GSI EDUCATION

Given the limited space underneath the MFL East, the aforementioned projects prioritize small-scale GSI that provides maximum community benefit. In addition to managing stormwater, the proposed interventions would link the rail stations and commercial corridor to major investments in the Kensington neighborhood. Larger policy changes will also help reduce the total impervious cover in the area by improving the structuring of PWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grant program and lowering the minimum land disturbance threshold for development projects. If successful, these pilot programs could be incorporated into other sections of the MFL, both farther north along the MFL East and along the MFL in West Philadelphia.

PWD Willing Budget Estimate:

$1,676,503

Proposed project

Future application potential

Current PWD project

Figure 80 Proposed projects along the MFL East

72 2

SITE 2: 25TH STREET VIADUCT

73 3

Built following World War I, the 25th Street Viaduct is an elevated structure made of concrete and steel that supports two tracks of rail used to move freight and oil. The viaduct runs directly adjacent to large industrial tracts and open space primarily, with the surrounding area comprised of the residential neighborhoods of Point Breeze to the East and Grays Ferry to the West. As of 2016, the current owner of the structure - CSX - is overseeing a major restoration of the viaduct, including improvements to the drainage, replacement of the parapet walls, and a resurfacing of the underside of the viaduct. The multiyear project provides a significant opportunity for the Philadelphia Water Department to work with CSX in incorporating GSI into the areas below, beside, and even atop the structure to maximize stormwater management and enhance safety along the corridor. The following section provides background on the 25th Street Viaduct and suggests potential projects and strategies for implementing GSI in the area.

Site

The 25th Street Viaduct study area is located in South Philly, and utilizes a three block buffer. The structure itself is often seen as the barrier between Grays Ferry to the West, and Point Breeze on the East, with the Schuylkill River and I-76 to far West. The structure runs for 1.2 miles from the banks of the Schuylkill River down to Passyunk Avenue which forms the southern border to the area.

North

Figure 81 Aerial of the 25th Street Viaduct Study Area

South

Structure

~44 ft Viaduct

~ 3 ft

Pillar width

~ 23 ft

Between opposite pillars

~ 22 - 37 ft

Between consecutive pillars Figure 82 25th Street Viaduct average dimensions

~ 18 ft

Adjacent traffic lane & parking

14 ft Height min.

Spur Locations

Oakford Wharton Reed Figure 83 One of the spurs along the 25th Street Viaduct

The structure was initially built for four tracks and to carry heavy loads of iron, steel, and coal. CSX became the fourth owner of the viaduct in 1999 when they purchased it from Conrail. Today it has two tracks used only for freight by CSX, with trains moving through at a frequency of 20 times a day. With the structure being 44ft wide, two lanes of traffic flow directly under with a lane in each direction along the structure and parking lanes. In 2015 CSX began a four phase construction project to renovate the viaduct. Phase I involved the removal of the parapet walls and installing protective netting along the entire length to capture any crumbling debris and was completed in May 2016. Phase II involves the replacing of the drainage system and repairing and waterproofing the deck. Joint conversations between CSX, PWD and the Philadelphia Streets department began in December 2016. Phase III will involve the replacement of the parapet walls, and Phase IV will wrap things up with resurfacing the underside of the viaduct. CSX as a company issues an annual corporate social responsibility report which has sections that focus on Environment and Efficiency as well as Communities. While historically, CSX has not been known to be an amiable partner with the City, there is hope that a collaboration is possible for redesigning the drainage of the viaduct to align with the goals and initiatives of PWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Green City, Clean Waters.

Dickinson Tasker Morris Moore Mifflin

History The rail line on 25th Street has existed since 1863 known as the Delaware Extension, built by the Pennsylvania Railroad to provide access to their own port, as well as to transport coal to the Philadelphia Gas Works which is still there to this day. As a result of the rail and the industrial uses, housing began to explode in the Point Breeze area. As part of the City Beautiful Movement, it was announced in 1913 that the rail along 25th and Washington Avenue would be elevated. However the onset of World War I stalled these plans and only 25th street would eventually be elevated between 1926 and 1928. It was thought that more industrial uses would be established along the alignment with “spurs” built to allow the train cars to enter into the buildings, load up, and leave. Those industrial uses never came, and these “spurs” are unutilized. For a long time Gray Ferry remained predominantly undeveloped and in 1942 the

1895 Philadelphia Atlas - Washington & 25th Source: Athenaeum of Philadelphia

Early 1800s The grid has not extended south to the Grays Ferry neighborhood, known previously as Passyunk Township

1835 The Southwark Railroad is built along Washington Avenue (formerly Prime Road) connecting the Delaware and Schuylkill

Tasker Homes were constructed to be public housing for low income white families with additional public housing being built in 1954 known as Wilson Park. The neighborhoods of Grays Ferry and Point Breeze were certified as blighted in 1968 and recertified as such in 2009. In 2010 local community organizations Universal Companies, Diversified Community Services, and the Point Breeze Performing Arts Center applied to have the neighborhoods identified as a promise neighborhood and were successful in that endeavor.

Prior to Construction of the Viaduct (circa 1916) Source: City of Philadelphia, Records

1863 The Delaware Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad is built along 25th Street from Washington to Point Breeze Avenue

1913 Mayor Blankenburg announces plans to elevate the industrial rail along 25th Street

Context According to the Promise Neighborhood application, the combined neighborhoods of Grays Ferry and Point Breeze are nearly 80% African American with increasing numbers in the Southeast Asian and Mexican populations. Nearly 50% of the population are living on incomes below federal poverty level and have an unemployment rate of about 20%, which is almost double that of Philadelphia as a whole. Property crimes are most prevalent, and of the violent crimes, robberies are most common. The South District Plan identified census block groups in this area as having the highest number of bike commuters in the country, however they did not suggest that any bike lanes be added to the neighborhood.

Under the 25th Street Viaduct (1960) Source: Library of Congress

1926 - 1928 Construction of the 25th Street Viaduct. Small spurs were built to connect with industrial factories

Ongoing Restoration of the 25th Street Viaduct (2016)

1942 The Tasker Homes were built to provide public housing for low-income white families in Grays Ferry

1999 CSX acquires the 25th Street Viaduct and connecting freight rail lines

2015 CSX announces a multiphase and multi-year effort to improve the 25th Street Viaduct

G ra ys

The study area has a pattern of predominately non-residential land use adjacent to 25th St. and residential in the non-adjacent blocks. Industrial parcels are more dominant in the northern portion of the study area. In particular, large utilities like Peco and Veolia Energy occupy the zone immediately Northwest of Grays Ferry Avenue. This industrial zone blocks the neighborhoods of Grays Ferry and Point Breeze from the Schuylkill River.

Fe rry

Sc hu yl k il l

Land Use in Study Area

Washington Ellsworth

The southern half if the study-are has a much more heterogeneous land usage along the corridor. Schools, parks and other publicly owned properties provide interesting opportunities for GSI.

Federal

Oakford Wharton Reed

25th Street Study Area

Dickinson Tasker

Percent of Adjacent Land Cover

Morris Moore

Mifflin McKean 20

in Po

eze

Snyder Jackson

Wolf Ritter

Transportation

Water

Civic/Institutional

Vacant

Park/Open Space

Commercial

Industrial

Residential

N 0

.125

.25

.5 Miles

Land Use Category

Figure 92 25th Street Study Area Land Use

Figure 93 25th Street Study Area Land Use Map

W Oregon

syu

Pas

Land Cover 1/4 Mile from Structure

Buildings

Grass/Shrub

Other Paved Surfaces

% landcover in band

Band 5 ( .2 - .25 miles) Band 4 ( .15 - .2 miles) Band 3 ( .1 - .15 miles) Band 2 ( .05 - .1 miles) Band 1 ( < .05 miles)

The 25th St. Viaduct study area has a high rate of impervious surfaces directly adjacent to the structure. The figure on the right depicts a band analysis performed to categorize the land cover radiating out from the elevated structure at 1/20 mile intervals up to 1/10 of a mile. Each bar graph below shows the percentage of that type of land cover in each band. An analysis of the the relationship between land cover type and proximity to the viaduct revealed that over 30% of the area between .05 and .1 miles from the viaduct was covered by paved surfaces (not including roads, sidewalks, raillines or buildings). This well above the city average and indicates an opportunity for GSI in close proximity to the structure. Impervious surfaces that are unburdened by buildings or transportation functions may have low barriers to greening. Additionally, the low rates of “Grass/Shrub” and “Tree Canopy” in this zone underscore the need for such an intervention.

Roads/Railroads

Tree Canopy

Closest

Furthest 0

Figure 94 25th Street Study Area Land Cover

Figure 95 25th Street Study Area Land Cover Distance Band

.125

.25 Miles

Existing Conditions Goal #1 The 25th Street viaduct exhibits low light and poor visibility. The large pillars are spaced close together, limiting the movement of traffic and further hindering visibility, especially at intersections. The structure is bound by four lanes of traffic, with the exterior lanes offering access to the industrial properties. The sidewalks are in poor condition due to the trucks that pass in and out of the adjacent warehouses. A subsurface gas line runs parallel to the viaduct, limiting the viability of some green infrastructure.

IMPROVE ACCESS & SAFETY

Improve active transportation accessibility and safety along the 25th Street Viaduct

Narrow Spaces

Figure 96 25th Street Viaduct Existing Conditions

Low Light

Four Lanes of Traffic

Degraded Sidewalk

Projects

ra ys F

er ry

Three projects will provide safer routes for pedestrians and cyclists through the focus site. These interventions will allow for better connections to the rest of the city, between neighborhoods, and to public facilities. Bump-outs and lighting will be installed at an intersection, a bike lane will be built under the viaduct, a greenway stretching four blocks will be restored, and stormwater planters will run adjacent to the sidewalk.

Washington

Wharton

Tasker

Mifflin ze

ree tB

syu

Pas

N 0

.125

.25

.5 Miles

W Oregon

Figure 97 Project sites for improving active transportation and safety along the 25th Street Viaduct Figure 98 The intersections along the viaduct are littered with signage and have poor sight lines due to the columns

Intersection improvements The large pillars under the viaduct hinder visibility for vehicles and pedestrians. Several crossings, including those at Mifflin, Moore, Tasker, and Wharton Streets are sites of pedestrian collisions. The first intervention recommends sidewalk bump-outs and lighting at Moore and 25th Street. The bump-outs and lighting will notify drivers that they are approaching an intersection, slowing traffic across and under the viaduct. A two-way bike lane will be installed under the viaduct running the length of 25th street from McKean Street to Washington Avenue, with vehicular traffic restricted to the outside two lanes. Planters installed under the viaduct will emphasize to cyclists that they are approaching an intersection, and lighting will further improve visibility. Lighting has been used on CSX infrastructure before, having been installed on a viaduct that crosses the University of Pennsylvaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s West Philadelphia campus.

Stormwater planters Stormwater planters will be installed adjacent to the sidewalks on either side of 25th Street viaduct, from Mifflin to Ellsworth Street, with some exceptions due to utility conflicts (see figure). These planters are structures with four concrete walls that sit below sidewalk level, catching stormwater runoff from the surrounding streets. Because 25th Street sits at a low point in the neighborhood, the planters will infiltrate a large volume of water. This project will take advantage of the large amount of space in the right of way on 25th Street.

Figure 102Subsurface Utility Engineering Figure 100Subsurface space free of utilities is a rare occurrence in urban areas, with the knowledge of such areas even less frequent. Currently, many cities across the United States are unaware of the exact location of all of the subsurface infrastructure and have to rely on the One-Call system for mark outs. It is estimated that an underground utility is hit on average every 60 seconds. Unexpectedly hitting utilities can severely increase project cost, not only due to repairs, but construction delays. Building Information Modeling (BIM) creates 3D representation of structures and has recently been used for subsurface utilities by incorporating geophysical survey data. A live, adaptable resource for all City departments would improve the design process and cut costs across the board. Figure 101

Figure 99 Site plan showing intersection at Moore and 25th Streets today (above) and the intersection with planters and bump-outs, with bike lanes replacing the two interior lanes beneath the viaduct.

RT H

DI CK IN S L RA DE FE

LS W O

TA SK RD FO OA K

IS M O HA RT O W

RE E

M O

M IF F

LI N

Figure 103 Locations of proposed stormwater planters, from Mifflin to Ellsworth Streets.

Revive a Greenway Further south, an underused greenway will be restored as a bike lane and pedestrian walk. The greenway currently spans four blocks on 24th Street from McKean Street to Passyunk Avenue. Originally installed in the 1940s, the greenway currently boasts mature London Plain and Maple trees, and a wide lane of grass. A bike and pedestrian lane of impervious cover, together with some simple bioswales, could serve to infiltrate water while also offering an amenity to the neighborhood. Current investments in nearby Smith Playground could be leveraged to support this project. Smith Playground is undergoing a $3.1 million revitalization effort, through a partnership between Philadelphia Parks and Recreation, Make the World Better Foundation, and Urban Roots.

Figure 104 24th Street Greenway Existing Conditions

Figure 106 25th Street Greenway Improvements

Figure 105 24th Street Greenway Improvements

Implementation The greenway, bike lane and pedestrian crossings will be implemented through partnerships with the local community and organizations in support of safer multimodal transportation in Philadelphia. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commision and the Bike Coalition in Philadelphia are supporters involved with bicycle lanes. Make the World Better Foundation and Urban Roots may provide support to the Greenway, as the project lies adjacent to Smith Playground, where these organizations are already investing significant fund. The pedestrian crossings and sidewalk planters could be implemented incrementally, as funding allows, to eventually provide a connected green bikeway on 25the Street. Designs for this project could begin immediately, and construction could coincide with CSXâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s repairs to the viaduct drainage, in the following years.

7,076

5,699

5,490 4,496

Impact This three part project would result in significant impacts to drainage in the focus site. Situated at a low point in the neighborhood, green infrastructure on 25th Street would receive a large amount of stormwater. These interventions would not only have an impact on the environmental health of the area, but they would contribute socially and economically. Street crossings would be safer with a defined bike lane and street crossings, as well as lighting under the viaduct. These connections may draw more economic activity to the neighborhood, and better capitalize on development activity and investments currently occurring immediately to the north, at Pennovation Works, and with the planned Schuylkill River Trail extensions.

Figure 107 Drainage analysis for select 25th St. Greenway Site (Moore St.)

Existing Conditions Goal #2 The Philadelphia Water Department is currently partnering with the Philadelphia Streets Department to assist CSX with planning repairs to the 25th Street Viaductâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s drainage. PWD has encouraged the company to externalize the drainage, to capture and treat runoff from the viaduct rather than allowing it to flow through the and into the combined sewer system. PWD envisions custom planters placed between the columns of the viaduct to receive runoff, but these projects may not be sufficient to capture all of the water from the infrastructure. To capture and treat more runoff, large vacant parcels may be repurposed as a low-impact green infrastructure project.

OPTIMIZE PUBLIC LAND

Utilize publicly-owned adjacent parcels for large-scale GSI retention

Large Lot Large Lot

Figure 108 2500 Tasker Street

Disused Spurs

Projects

G ra

rry

CSX plans to demolish close to 50% of the unused spurs by the end of their refurbishing project, but these underutilized spaces could be uniquely redesigned to capture stormwater and direct it to adjacent parcels for infiltration, treatment, and possible reuse. A parcel at 2500 Tasker Street is currently vacant and owned by the Philadelphia School District. The lot is 130,000 square feet and is nearby two busy community gardens that may be able to reuse the harvested and filtered stormwater. The lot includes a warehouse but is otherwise empty, serving as a prime location for planting and light interventions. The parcel could receive soil amendments to allow for infiltration, and plantings to enable stormwater retention. The spurs on the viaduct abut the property, and a simple system could be installed to direct water from the infrastructure to the parcel.

Washington

Wharton

This intervention could be an experimental pilot project. The proposed project could integrate innovative concepts for the drainage methods, rainwater storage, and repurposing of the viaduct. PWD could involve nearby students at Pennovation Works, The University of Pennsylvaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research campus that includes working spaces for engineering and design students, entrepreneurs, and researchers. The installation would not be permanent and, if needed, the parcel could be available for the redevelopment in the future.

Tasker

Mifflin

ree tB

syu

Pas

N 0

.125

.25

.5 Miles

W Oregon

Figure 109 Recommended projects and potential sites for diversion of stormwater onto adjacent public land

Implementation

CASE STUDY

A large parcel dedicated to stormwater infiltration adjacent to the viaduct would capture approximately 0.5 acres of impervious cover if all rainwater from the viaduct on that block was diverted to the parcel. If a method could be devised for diverting more rainwater to the parcel, the lot would have the capacity to capture a large amount of rainwater. The parcel is 130,000 square feet, or 3 acres, allowing it to capture as much as 30 acres of stormwater. This installation would cost approximatley $80,000, or less depending on the type of soil amendments and plantings. Partners for this project could include Pennovation Works and University of Pennsylvaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School of Engineering. The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society may also be able to support the project, as nearby community gardens may be able to harvest rainwater from the site. The Clean Water State Revolving fund could provide funding.

Harvesting Rainwater for Urban Agriculture At the Walnut Community Farm in West Philadelphia, rainwater from a nearby SEPTA train station is harvested for irrigation. The water is captured from the roof of the station and diverted to large 1,100 gallon storage tanks, where it is then used for crops. Because the community farm parcel is owned by SEPTA, the partnership between the two groups was relatively simple. Students from nearby Drexel University College of Engineering were tasked with devising irrigation techniques for the raised beds on the site. In a 10-week workshop, the students produced designs for watering, heating and tilling the gardens (Drexel University).

17,500

Figure 110 Drainage analysis for Tasker Street bioretention

Impact The proposed project at 2500 Tasker Street has the potential to capture 17,500 square feet of drainage directly from the viaduct. In addition to the volume it would manage, the project would be a pilot study that allows CSX to test an alternative open-air drainage system working in partnership with PWD. Given the excess amount of public land and other open space directly adjacent to the structure, there is an opportunity to implement this approach at other locations along the corridor, including two community gardens, if it proves successful. The project would also assist in reviving a lot that is currently overgrown and strewn with debris in order to provide a green buffer between the viaduct and nearby residential block.

Summary Goals

Total contributing drainage area:

IMPROVE ACCESS AND SAFETY OPTIMIZE PUBLIC LAND

161,400 SF

Although the 25th Street Viaduct had been in disrepair for many years, the current reconstruction efforts by CSX offer an opportune time to reimagine the future of the corridor. If implemented, the proposed projects could assist in transforming the elevated structure from a defining barrier between Point Breeze and Grays Ferry into a collective asset that improves access, increases safety, and greens a former industrial corridor.

PWD Willing Budget Estimate:

$245,000

WASHINGTON

WHARTON

TASKER

MIFFLIN

Proposed project

E BR

SNYDER

Future application potential

Current PWD project K

SY PAS

Figure 111 Proposed projects along the 25th Street Viaduct

SITE 3: I-95 LOWER SOUTH

The lower South portion of I-95 is characterized by several unique features that offer an interesting case study for implementing large scale, environmentally focused, GSI. Land owners such as the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation, the Navy Yard, and FDR Park constitute the majority of the area surrounding I-95, providing opportunities for PWD to work with fewer entities on highly impactful projects. The vast majority of the I-95 South site falls within FEMAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 100-year floodplain and is fully outside the Philadelphia Combined Sewer System, necessitating the development of effective flood mitigation and runoff filtration systems. With development potential in the region, catalyzed by the Navy Yard, PWD and its partners are in a position to implement GSI across a relatively low density part of the City to protect valuable infrastructure from flooding while simultaneously treating stormwater runoff.

Site

I-95 South is located proximate to several distinct features in Philadelphia. The site is wedged between FDR Park and the various stadiums to the North, the Navy Yard to the South, and the Schuylkill River to the West. Running directly through the site, the Southern portion of I-95 (highlighted in red on the adjacent map) helps connect the Greater Philadelphia region with the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s international airport via the bridge at Girard Point on the Southwestern tip of the study area. This site analyses a 1.25 mile stretch of I-95. As mentioned previously, this section of the highway falls within the 100-year floodplain and is surrounded by unique large-parcel land owners, including the stadiums (240 acres), the Navy Yard (1200 acres), and FDR Park (350 acres). In terms of other defining geographic features, the site is bounded by the Schuylkill River to the West and South, which represents the main environmental threat in the region due to flooding concerns that are exacerbated by climate change. Furthermore, the majority of the currently developed land was previously marshland, indicating that the area was historically flooded. I-95 South falls outside the combined sewer system, which indicates that the effluent from runoff drains directly into the surrounding water bodies without any treatment.

Figure 112 Aerial of I-95 Lower South

Structure

Figure 114 I-95 as it crosses over the Girard Point Bridge

Figure 113 Underneath I-95

Constructed in the 1980s, the southern portion of I-95 highway connects residents and workers throughout Philadelphia. Daily trips across Girard Point are estimated at 104,920.

structure also is used for storage capacity for Street’s Department and Stadium supplies.

The characteristics of the structure vary across space. The wester section of the structure is tall as it descends from the Girard Point Bridge and has a split deck that let in considerable light. Moving east along the I-95 the two decks eventually merge and the elevation of the structure drops considerably, to the point that by the time it crosses Broad Street below the structure is dark and it begins to feel more like a tunnel. Use uses beneath the structure also differ at different segments. Several main transit systems, including a CSX rail line, the 26th Street entrance into the Aker Philadelphia Shipping Yard, Broad Street, and entrances into the Stadium Districts. There are also several formal and informal uses under the structure. For instance, the FDR Skate Park is located under the I-95 adjacent to the FDR Park. The

Stormwater runoff is collected at each pier, channeled at a downspout that discharges directly onto the ground at base of the structure. In sections outside the CSO the runoff flows directly into Stormwater inlets that flow directly into the Schuylkill River. As an interstate, I-95 is owned and maintained by Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). Due to the reconstruction underway for the I-95, PWD has an established liaison with PennDOT to help with design and planning regarding stormwater retention on the new construction. PennDOT’s mission includes playing a leading role in environmental sustainability. Putting this into practice they have created the Sustainable Action Committee to identify relevant, appropriate and affordable community projects to be incorporated in the reconstruction plans for I-95. PennDOT’s mission is in alignment with the project proposals along the southern section of I-95.

~110 ft Highway Deck

~6 ft ~20 ft

Support

Height

Figure 115 Typical dimensions of the I-95 elevated structure in Lower South Philadelphia

100

History The area known as League Island (illustrated below on the island feature in the first panel of the history section) and Southwark Yard (along the Southern stretch of the Delaware River) served as the primary shipbuilding center for the United States between 1776 and 1812, supporting the War of Independence and the War of 1812. While League Island and Southwark Yard were privately owned during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the 923 acre region was transferred to the United States Government in 1868. The area, soon to be known as the Navy Yard, simultaneously attracted new development and was established as a permanent naval base. Tens of thousands of workers were employed by the yards, constructing and comparing hundreds of ships, until the Navy Yardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s closure in 1996. Recently, the Navy Yard has become a case study example of commercial redevelopment in a former military facility, generating over $700 million in local investment (Navy Yard History).

Lower South Philadelphia Map (1903) Source: Private Collection of William Krispin

Pre-1800s Lower South Philadelphia was primarily marshland prior to development of the Navy Yard

1868 The City of Philadelphia transferred League Island to the U.S. Navy for $1

Just North of the Navy Yard, FDR Park has defined the Southern tip of Philadelphia since 1916. Designed by the Olmstead Brothers, the park reclaimed previously destroyed marshland with a series of ponds and lagoons, alluding to the historic Atlantic Coastal Plain ecosystems of pre-Colonial America. Notably, the 1926 Sesquicentennial Exposition was held on the grounds of FDR Park (Philadelphia Historical Commission). The Stadium District serves as the third defining feature in the study area. The first stadium in the area was developed in 1926 for the Sesquicentennial Exposition and has since evolved as the site for Wells Fargo Center, Lincoln Financial Field, and Citizens Bank Park. surrounding water bodies untreated

Mustin Airfield (1926) Source: City of Philadelphia, Records

1916 Founding of League Island Park, which would later be named Franklin Delano Roosevelt Park

1926 Construction of Mustin Airfield, a military airfield located here until 1963

101

Context This section of the highway falls within the 100-year floodplain and is surrounded by unique large-parcel land owners, including the stadiums (240 acres), the Navy Yard (1200 acres), and FDR Park (350 acres). The Schuylkill River bounds I-95 South to the West and South, representing the main environmental threat in the region. Flooding concerns, that are exacerbated by climate change, plague this section of the highway. Furthermore, the majority of the currently developed land was previously marshland, indicating that the area was historically flooded; the area also represents a low-lying section of the City. I-95 South falls outside the combined sewer system, which indicates that the effluent from runoff drains directly into the surrounding water bodies untreated

Construction of I-95 in Lower South Philadelphia (1970) Source: Temple University Libraries

1940s Establishment of the South Philadelphia Terminal Rail Yard

1970s Construction of I-95 in Lower South Philadelphia and Veterans Stadium

Each of the major land owners has separate agendas for the management of their respective site. The Navy Yard constantly engages in local economic development to attract new businesses to the campus; FDR Park wants to re-energize their park space to draw in visitors; and the Stadiums want to improve attendance at the various events they host. Each land owner, and their respective objectives, represent different opportunities and constraints for implementing GSI in I-95 South.

Navy Yard Site Plan (2013) Source: NavyYard.org

1996 Philadelphia Naval Shipyard was closed on September 26, 1996

2000 PIDC acquired control of the Navy Yard on behalf of the City of Philadelphia and PAID

102

Underutilized Park Space

No Pedestrian Crossing

Goal #1

REIMAGINE PARK SPACE

Repurpose under-utilized areas of the park to attract more visitors Existing Conditions Site visits revealed a steep embankment located on the Eastern most edge of the park that appears to be neither used for recreation purposes at FDR nor is it part of the parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 77 acres of natural lands. The embankment is dominated by mowed grass and was flanked by an access road to the West and the right-of-way of Broad Street to the East. There are a handful of trees along Broad Street and several additional clumps of trees along sections of the access road. This particular site is also located just north of the proposed Broad Street Subway line extension station. The busy intersection at the Northeastern section of FDR Park features the I-95 off and on ramps, and has no pedestrian crossing.

Proposed Broad Street Line Extension

Figure 124 Opportunity area along the eastern edge of FDR Park

103

Figure 126 Dutch Kills Green | Source: LAF

Urban Wetlands Hong Kong Wetland Park is a 150 acre wetland reserve that focuses on conservation, education, and tourism. Beginning as an ecological restoration project in 1998, plans to convert the area into a park were developed after establishing that the addition of tourists and educational elements would not deter from the parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ecological function. Facilities at the park include a series of wetland features that emphasize different wetlands, along with themed exhibition galleries and facilities. The park has become a highly popular tourist location, attracting over 3 million visitors in the first five years. In 2007 the park received an Award for Excellence in the Asia Pacific Competition from the Urban Land Institute.

Transforming a commuter parking lot at the edge of Queens Plaza Roadway transformed the entrance into Queens, NY into a 1.5 acre open space that incorporates a wetland park that features native trees and grasses, and can prevents over 20 million gallons of stormwater entering New Yorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s combined sewer system. The use of native plants that are also drought resistant reduces irrigation needs and helps sequester over 1,000 pounds of carbon per year. The project increased adjacent property values, incorporated bike and pedestrian pathways, and draws an average of 135 users per day in the summer.

CASE STUDY

Figure 125 Qun-li Wetland Park | Source: ArchDaily

104

Wetland Park The proposed intervention at this site involved transforming the Eastern edge of FDR Park into a constructed â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Wetland Park.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; This would provide a valuable resource for visitors and workers traveling to the nearby Stadium District and Navy Yard. Well paved pathways and a boardwalk over the proposed wetland features will invite visitors to walk through and experience a wetland up-close. Drawing inspiration from the Landschaftspark in Duisburg-Meiderich, Germany, which repurposed the rooms of an old ironwork factory to display different garden features that visitors observe from a walkway above, this proposal would incorporate the concept of a progression of observed rooms in the use of wetland pools that would spill into each other. As visitors travel along the boardwalk they can look out onto a series of wetland features that will be segmented in such a way that shows the different stages of a wetland. Curriculum will be developed to augment the existing Fairmount Water Works curriculum that will help students engage with different native wetland functions as they travel from the Eastern edge of the park west to the edge with the existing Meadow Pond. As a highly visible project that is expected to draw visitors and student field trips from throughout the city this project could serve as a flagship project for PWD. This wetland construction would transform an underutilized segment of public land, expand the natural lands of the park, and provide valuable habitat for rare and endangered wetland species. In addition, it would have the capacity to filter and manage over an acre of stormwater runoff from Broad Street. Moreover, as a former marshland and a naturally occurring low point, climate change is projected to potentially cause FDR park to experience more frequent flooding events and rising water levels. Converting the park to include more wetlands will not only help ease this transition and provide some flood mitigation with more areas of the park to absorb water, but the addition of boardwalks and educational curriculum will help ensure that residents can continue to find value in their park, even if climate change forces it to revert to a more marshland-like landscape.

Figure 127 Proposed wetland park location

105

Broad Street

Access Road

Pond

Broad Street

Access Road

Pond

FDR on Park FDR Park Existing Condition Eastern Border FDR Park Broad Street

Broad Street

FDR Park with Wetland Boardwalk

ail CSX R

line

il line

a CSX R

Navy Yard Navy Yard

106

Implementation Acting as a community amenity and a showcase for wetland education, this project will require the Philadelphia Water Department to apply for various outside funding and partner with key institutions in the area. One such funding source could be the wetland Program Development Grants, which could be used to help with education and studies connectd to the demonstration of stormwater retention using wetlands. Acting as a “good neighbor” and supporting the tourist draw of the addition to FDR Park, the neighboring Stadium District and Navy Yard could also be sponsors. The PWD will also need to partner with SEPTA to link to the proposed subway station if it’s construction is approved. Moreover, it is important that the partners and PWD take on the maintenance of the wetland park to prevent adding the maintenance strain of Parks and Recreation staff and budget. To combat this concern, PWD could contract out maintenance of the Wetland Park, partially sponsored by the adjacent Stadium District. One of the most important partners on this project could be Heinz Wildlife Refuge. As the most urban of all wildlife refuges in the United State, Heinz Wildlife Refuge is seeking to directly engage with residents in neighboring Southwest Philadelphia communities as well as locate other partner projects in high profile locations, such as the Philadelphia Zoo. FDR Park could serve as one of these off-site partner locations, especially given their existing partnership with the Phillies.

Figure 128 Education Demonstration at Fairmount Water Works | PWD

Although the location of the proposed wetland construction is not primarily located in the high priority areas of conservation made by the Fairmount Park Conservancy (See Figure 128) the wetland construction would bring attention to the park’s existing wetland capacity and could help spur additional funding and joint restoration projects. As proposed, the new wetland construction would end at the edge of the Meadow Lake, and could incorporate the high priority wetland restoration identified on the Eastern section of Meadow Lake. By coordinating conservation efforts the construction of the constructed stormwater wetland feature could be just an aspect of a larger ecological rehabilitation of FDR Park. Heinz WIldlife Refuge | TripAdvisor

107

Impact The proposed wetland construction will have the capacity to capture and filter 1.3 acres of stormwater that will be redirected from the nearby Broad Street and off-ramp of I-95 (see Figure 130). The real impact of this project, however, will be the educational opportunity, both as a passive education by visitors passing through on their way to the Stadiums or Navy Yard, and more active educational opportunities with dedicated curriculum that walks students through the different stages of a wetland for field trips. While not every space in Philadelphia can be transformed into a full wetland feature, examples such as Dutch Kill Greens demonstrate that constructed wetlands and wetland features can be incorporated into highly urban settings. By constructing wetland examples that emphasize the educational capacity and visitor draw of wetlands, the FDR demonstration wetland park will provide a typology that can be implemented in other parks across the city to filter stormwater and also increase biodiversity hotspots. To have the highest impact constructed wetlands should be implemented along riparian stream buffers and along former stream beds, which are still low points in the city.

Figure 130 Project drainage area along Broad Street

108

Goal #2

MANAGE HIGHWAY RUNOFF

Capture and filter highway runoff within the right-of-way to improve water quality outside the CSO

Inlet

Fence

ail lin

CSX R

Figure 131 I-95 Existing Conditions

109

When the southern segment of I-95 was constructed in the 1980s it split off a portion of FDR park, which has since become disused and developed a stand of mature trees. Just south of I-95 this area is separated from the park by fences to the north and rail lines to the south. While technically part of the I-95 and the railroad rightof-way, in effect this land has remained relatively untouched for three decades. The existing capacity of the site to retain stormwater is unknown. Each pier of the I-95 structure has a downspout that discharges at the base directly onto the ground. A slight grading causes this runoff to flow south where it enters an inlet that flows directly into the Schuylkill without enter the sewer system.

Figure 132 Mercer Corridor in Seattle | SDOT

Urban ROW Highway Runoff Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Department of Transportation utilized TIGER grants to reduce impervious surface near a large highway renovation project, installing GSI in the form of green medians, adjacent rain gardens, and greater tree coverage near the corridor. The Mercer Corridor project was used to reduce impervious area by 0.7 acre and was designed to help control polluted roadway runoff.

CASE STUDY

Existing Conditions

110 Highway Runoff Filtration Highway runoff is highly contaminated, containing heavy metals, gasoline, oil, de-icing materials, and particulates deposited by truck hauling. Highway runoff has the highest concentration of sediment for any urban land use, and runoff is often super-heated or cooled in the summer and winter to a point that it can disrupt aquatic ecosystems if discharged directly into nearby waterways. The PA Department of the Environment recommends bioswales, filter strips and biofiltration as the best management practices to filter highway sediment and contaminants. The heavy contamination of highway runoff poses a high ecological risk in areas of the city outside the CSO because this runoff flows into inlets that empty directly into the Schuylkill River, contributing to impaired waterways with high sediment and contaminant levels.

Figure 133 Proposed intervention to capture highway runoff in the right-of-way

The proposed intervention for this site is to strategically incorporate filter strips into the unused ROW former parkland. Filter strips have been shown to remove runoff contaminants. Filter strips typically include two or more gravel filtrations sections, with filtration plants and (see Figure 133). A study in North Carolina found that biofiltration was able to remove most highway runoff contaminants excepting a few heavy metals. Plants that are specifically good at removing heavy metals will be incorporated into the filter systems. The first element of the filter will involve a sediment catch that could include a removable filter that could help prevent ecological destruction in the event of a major oil spill or other highway pollution event. Emphasis will be placed on using native vegetation that matches the existing plantings, when applicable.

111

Implementation

Impact

In the next decade, this portion of I-95 is planned for construction as a segment of Sector B in PennDOTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s I-95 reconstruction plan. At this time it is recommended that PennDOT implement this proposed series of filter strips to fully manage and filter the stormwater runoff coming from their structure. During this reconstruction it would also be easy to regrade the ground underneath the structure to flow south instead of north so that runoff will effectively collect in the filter strips. Although unconfirmed by geotechnical tests, it is assumed that the emergent ecosystem that has developed will have a high capacity to retain and filter water given that it has been marshland and parkland, with no historic development. It is therefore important that the reconstruction crew for I-95 try to minimize their disturbance of the vegetation on this site and also try to minimize soil compaction. Any land that has been compacted will likely require more extensive soil amendments before it can readily infiltrate water.

This proposed intervention has more than enough space to filter and process all of the runoff from the adjacent I-95 structure, contributing up to 11.8 green stormwater acres. These acres are outside of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CSO area, and as such do not contribute to PWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current greened acre goal. Nevertheless, it would prevent substantial river contamination, thereby promoting healthy aquatic ecosystems.

Because this project will help PennDOT meet their stormwater management requirements the Philadelphia Water Department can serve more as an advisor and assist with design, leaving construction and maintenance to PennDOT. Because the land was formerly part of FDR Park it would be a good idea to partner with the Friends of FDR Park to help connect to community residents regarding outreach and education, and the Philadelphia Parks and Recreation to ensure no damage is done to the neighboring park sections.

Figure 134 Drainage area for ROW project

I-95

FDR Park

1-5% Grading Sediment Catch Filtering Plants

Gravel Filter

Forest

112

Goal #3

Existing Conditions

MITIGATE FLOODING

Mitigate floofing by providing buffers to vulnerable infrastructure

Existing Conditions Fig-

The Western portion of the I-95 study area if locally known as Girard Point, which is adjacent to the Navy Yard (South), Tastykake factory (North), Philadelphia Energy Systems (Northwest), I-95 (center of the site), and the Schuylikill River (West and South). The zoning of the area is primarily industrial, although FDR park is a few hundred meters away. Philadelphia Energy Systems (PES) owns the the largest oil refinery on the Eastern Seaboard, processing over 14 million gallons of crude oil daily. The main facilities are located in Point Breeze and Girard Point, which have operated since 1915 (PES History). Tastykake, a facility owned by the Tasty Baking Company, is part of the Flowerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Foods parent company, which generates $3.75 billion in annual revenue, illustrating a potential funding partner for the proposed site intervention. Furthermore, Tastycake is a LEED Silver facility and any environmentally responsible projects onsite would reinforce their committment to sustainability (Tastykake History). Environmentally, Girard Point is located entirely within FEMAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 100year floodplain. Moreover, the site acts as a nexus between inland sites producing runoff and the Schuylkill river, which absorbs that runoff. This site has the potential to offset some of that stormwater.

Figure Figure 135Gi-

Figure 137Schuylkill Figure 139 Existing Conditions near the Tastykake Factory

113

Broad St

Pe nn ro s

eA ve

Arcata, CA Wetland Marsh

The marsh can manage the full 2.3 million daily gallons of sewage generated by the City of Arcata. In terms of biodiversity, visitors to the wetland system have observed over 320 bird species using the feature at various times of the year (Oppelt, 2000).

Figure 140 Project site for I-95 Goal 3

CASE STUDY

The city of Arcata, CA, located along Humboldt Bay, constructed a 154-acre freshwater and saltwater marsh, which effectively replaced a proposal to build a wastewater treatment plant at a fraction of the cost. The Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sancturay features several types of wetlands, promoting the establishment of distinct ecosystems that filter wastewater in unique ways and provide for a cleaner end-product. In terms of financials, the wetland cost Arcata some $5 million as compared to the $10 million they would have paid for a wastewater treatment facility and is considerably less expensive to maintain.

114

Proposed Intervention Flood Mitigating Wetland The proposed intervention on the Western edge of the I-95 site involves designing and constructing a wetland with the ability to manage both stormwater runoff from the surrounding parcels as well acting as a flood mitigation feature to buffer Girard Point during storm surges. This constructed wetland would have the potential to manage some 871,00 sq. ft. of runoff from the surrounding area, amounting to around 20 acres of fully managed land. The wetland features a series of deep and shallow pools to help facilitate water filtration systems. Different species of microorganisms live in unique aquatic environments, requiring the development of multiple types of wetland environments. Each type of microorganism offers a special wastewater filtration service and is required to adequately cleanse effluent to meet EPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Clean Water Standards. This feature, beyond effectively managing acres of stormwater runoff, has the potential to improve social and environmental benefits to the region, reinforcing the triple bottom line in Girard Point. Properly constructed wetlands are particularly good at providing habitat for endemic and migratory species. Philadelphia, as part of the Atlantic Flyway,hosts dozens of migratory bird species at different times of the year. Due to wetland degradation in area, safe resting habitats for these avian species are often difficult to find. Therefore, creating habitat is crucially important and wetlands are excellent tools for accomplishing this goal. Socially, this proposal suggests that the wetlands can be utilized by local workers on their breaks, allowing them to meander along the walkways (in orange on the site plan). A proposed amphitheater, hills, and vantage points by the river, give visitors unparalleled views of Girard Point, the Navy Yard, and FDR Park. Overall, the constructed wetland proposal at Girard Point will manage 20 acres of runoff, provide critical habitat for several species, and create severely lacking open space for use by staff at the Tastykake factory as well as visitors to the area. Figure 141 Proposed project location near Tastykake

115

Implementation

THE CASE STUDY NAME

The average design and construction process for a wetland at this scale can take anywhere from five to ten (or more) years. We anticipate that the project will begin the design phase around 2026 and will be completed by 2031, barring any major delays. For partners, we believe that three entities will be especially helpful: PIDC, The Navy Yard, and Tastykake. PIDC, who owns the land, must be convinced that this property on Girard Point is simply too risky to develop on given the flooding potential. Hopefully, this would grant PWD the opportunity to invest in strategically located large scale GSI without having to buy an expensive piece of property. Tastykake, as part of Flower’s Foods (revenue of $3.45 billion per year), might also invest in local GSI projects to promote their committment to sustainabiity, as demonstrated by the Tastykake facility’s LEED Silver status. Finally, the Navy Yard has heavily developed this area for several years and has explicilty stated its dedication to improving stormwater infrastructure and improving greenspace. Our team is confident that this constructed wetland fits well with the Navy Yard’s overall environmental strategy in the area.

Impact The proposed constructed wetland at Girard Point will serve as an extended stormwater retention and filtration system that can reduce flooding around I-95, the Navy Yard, and Tastykake. This wetland will manage runoff from around 20 acres of land with an associated project budget of $4,000,000 for PWD. Constructing a wetland at Girard Point not only improves the area’s overall stormwater resilience, it also highlights the city’s committment to reinforing the triple bottom line using GSI. The wetland would provide crucial habitat for both local and migratory species as well as recreational opportunities for local workers, illustrating the benefits of installing GSI in lieu of grey infrastrucutre projects.

Figure 14220 acres of drainage area Figure 143$4,000,000 budget for PWD

Figure 144 Drainage area for Girard Point constructed wetland feature.

116

Summary Goals

Total contributing drainage area:

REIMAGINE PARK SPACE MANAGE HIGHWAY RUNOFF MITIGATE FLOODING Due to the environmental sensitivity of the I-95 site, each of the three associated interventions aims to maximize both stormwater management and the realization of reestablished ecosystem services. By managing flooding at Girard Point, the proposed constructed wetland will buffer vulnerable infrastructure in the region while managing close to 20 acres of stormwater. The treatment of highway runoff in the I-95 right-of-way utilizes existing green features to filter stormwater in the least disruptive manner, setting precedent for the I-95 Revive project. Finally, the newly proposed FDR Park wetland will serve as the connective tissue between the new Broad Street

1,631,000 SF

PWD Willing Budget Estimate:

$7,903,000

117

Proposed project

Future application potential

Current PWD project

Figure 145 Proposed projects along I-95 Lower South

118

CONCLUSION

119

In Philadelphia, elevated transportation structures are a heavily used piece of infrastructure. Created to make travel in the urban environment easier, they cut through every type of neighborhood and convey every type of transportation mode. Whether they are located just a few feet from the surrounding buildings like in Kensington, or soaring over marshland in south Philadelphia, elevated structures are an integral part of Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban fabric. Unfortunately, this single-minded focus on transportation results in structures that cover just one facet of the communities they pass through and so fail to fulfill their full capacity. This gap can be fulfilled by utilizing green stormwater infrastructure to integrate elevated structures into their community and unlock their potential for economic, social, and environmental benefits. Since there is such a broad range of elevated infrastructure, and since these structures pass through almost every type of urban landscape in Philadelphia, developing a set of green infrastructure tools is the most practical strategy. In creating these tools, three sites were chosen to illustrate the wide range of conditions throughout Philadelphia. These sites include the Market Frankford Line in Kensington, the 25th Street Corridor in Point Breeze, and the I-95 expressway in south Philadelphia and they were selected based on their ability to showcase economic, social, and environmental green infrastructure tools. For each of these sites, several goals were established that addressed the specific needs and opportunities of the area, and then green infrastructure interventions were developed that managed these goals. Although the interventions that were developed are specific to each site, the lessons learned and infrastructure tools created are translatable to many different sites and situations. These tools include:

120

GSI and Elevated Structures: Tools

Green Corridors Site: Market-Frankford Ownership: Private/Public Land Use: Varies Parcel Size: Varies Access to available right-of-way defines green corridor feasibility. These projects are best suited in dense urban neighborhoods near commuter rails.

Optimize Public Land Site: 25th Street Ownership: Public Land Use: Vacant Parcel Size: Large Optimizing large publicly owned parcels of land adjacent to structures to be repurposed as low impact GSI projects; applicable near suitable elevated sites with nearby vacant land.

Educational Opportunities

Improve Access and Safety

Site: Market-Frankford Ownership: Public Land Use: Transportation Parcel Size: N/A

Site: 25th Street Ownership: Public Land Use: Transportation Parcel Size: Large

Environmental education to inspire stewardship and motivate support for PWD projects, to be applied across commuter rails.

Introduce traffic calming measures, safer crossings, and bike lanes. Can be applied in areas with large right-of-ways.

Constructed Wetlands

Manage Runoff in ROW

Site: I-95 Ownership: Public Land Use: Varies Parcel Size: Large

Site: I-95 Ownership: Public Land Use: Transportation Parcel Size: Large

Utilize constructed wetlands and marshes to filter large amounts of stormwater while providing educational, social, and ecosystem benefits. To be applied near elevated structures with high runoff and large adjacent lots.

Repurpose underutilized right-ofway space near elevated features to create large-scale GSI that filters particularly contaminated runoff; applicable near any large structures with unused right-ofway space.

121

GSI and Elevated Structures: Policies

Leverage Private Development

Target Large Landowners

Site: Market-Frankford Ownership: Private Land Use: Varies Parcel Size: Medium/Large

Site: Market-Frankford Ownership: Private Land Use: Institutions and Businesses Parcel Size: Large

By lowering the minimum land disturbance threshold and allowing an in-lieu fee, PWD could increase GSI requirements by private development.

Following the restructuring of the GSI grant programs, improve marketing to large landowners with multiple properties.

122

References Community Design Collaborative, “Nicetown Sports Court” (2014) CSX, “25th Street Viaduct”, Retrieved from www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/projects-and-partnerships/25th-street-viaduct/ Design Trust for Public Space, “Under the Elevated: Reclaiming Space, Connecting Communities” (2015)

Philadelphia Water Department, et al. “Stormwater Incentives Grant Manual: Stormwater Management Incentives Program & Greened Acre Retrofit Program” (2016) Philadelphia City Planning Commission, “South District Plan” (2015) Philadelphia City Planning Commission, “Lower South District Plan” (2012) Philadelphia City Planning Commission, “River Wards District Plan” (2015)

Detroit Future City, “A Field Guide” Retrieved from http://detroitfuturecity.com/ tools/a-field-guide/ Drexel University, “Walnut Hill Community Farm”. Retrieved from http://drexel.edu/ now/archive/2012/September/Walnut-Hill-Community-Farm/ “Environmental Education in Cities”, Nature of Cities. Retrieved from https:// www.thenatureofcities.com/2014/06/09/environmental-education-in-cities-focuses-on-youth-and-community-development-restoring-ecosystems-building-green-infrastructure-and-more-but-is-urban-environmental-education-really-anything-new-w/ EPA, “Projects: Greenfield School”. Retrieved from https://archive.epa.gov/jius/web/ html/greenfield_school.html Jim Saska, “CSX and Kenyatta Johnson announce plans to rebuild 25th Street viaduct”, PlanPhilly, April 8, 2015. Retrieved from http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/04/08/csx-and-kenyatta-johnson-announce-plans-to-rebuild-25th-streetviaduct Metropolitan Transportation Authority, “Greening Mass Transit & Metro Regions: The Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the MTA” (2009) Natural Resources Defense Council et al, “Creating Clean Water Cash Flows: Developing Private Markets for Green Stormwater Infrastructure in Philadelphia” (2013) Navy Yard History. Retrieved from http://www.navyyard.org/about-the-campus/ history Oppelt, E. Timothy. Manual: Constructed Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters (2000) United States Environmental Protection Agency pp.18, 61&139 PES History. Retrieved from http://pes-companies.com/refining-complex/history/. Philadelphia Historical Commission, “Franklin Delano Roosevelt Park Historic District - Inventory - Designated in 2000”. Philadelphia Water Department, “Amended Green City Clean Waters: The City of Philadelphia’s Program for Combined Sewer Overflow Control (Program Summary)” (2011) Philadelphia Water Department, “Green Infrastructure Project Opportunity Analysis - Memo”

Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education,”Environmental Art”. Retrieved from http://www.schuylkillcenter.org/departments/art/ Stratus Consulting Inc., “A Triple Bottom Line Assessment of Traditional and Green Infrastructure Options for Controlling CSO Events in Philadelphia’s Watersheds” (City of Philadelphia Water Department) Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/ production/files/2015-10/documents/gi_philadelphia_bottomline.pdf Tastykake History. Retrieved from http://www.tastykake.com/history. Wallace Roberts and Todd, “GIS Analysis for Prioritizing Green Stormwater Infrastructure Locations” (2011) *All High Resolution Aerial Photographs pulled from: PASDA, provided the City of Philadelphia*

123