Erase the Boundaries: Design Ideas for Greater Philadelphia by PennPraxis

ERASe THE BOUNDARIES: design ideas for greater philadelphia

Erase the Boundaries: Design Ideas for Greater Philadelphia is a product of the 2009 Philadelphia Regional Infrastructure Charrette, held from July 27 through July 29, 2009, at the School of Design of the University of Pennsylvania. The workshop was convened by PennDesign, orchestrated by PennPraxis and supported by the newly-formed Planning Collective. The Penn Institute for Urban Research hosted the public event organized in conjunction with the charrette on the evening of July 29, which brought together charrette team leaders and top city officials to discuss new visions for urban infrastructure. The workshop was funded by a grant from the William Penn Foundation and with the support of the Office of the Provost of the University of Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission served as the executive client. We would like to acknowledge the primary organizing group who made the event possible: • Laurie Actman, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability/ Metropolitan Caucus • Eugenie Birch, Penn Institute for Urban Research • Andrew Goodman, PennPraxis • Alan Greenberger, Acting Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development • Shawn McCaney, William Penn Foundation • Amy Montgomery, Penn Institute for Urban Research • Harris Steinberg, PennPraxis • Marilyn Jordan Taylor, PennDesign • Susan Wachter, Penn Institute for Urban Research For the online version, see www.planphilly.com/ erasetheboundaries.

table of contents executive summary

setting the stage

Economics of the Region Overview of the Region charrette discoveries

Overview Day 1: Investigating Regional Infrastructure Investments - Regional Transportation - Regional Natural Systems - Philadelphia International Airport Day 2: Testing Regional Systems in Philadelphia - Citywide Systems: Transportation and Natural Systems - Philadelphia International Airport - Central Schuylkill Urban Design appendix

Credits Organizing Principles Charrette Schedule Charrette Team Members Plan Links Presentations â&#x20AC;&#x201D; July 28

Executive summary

Executive Summary

The 2009 Philadelphia Regional Infrastructure Charrette brought together experts and thought-leaders

The charrette proceedings offer a response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

in the fields of economics, transportation, urban design, natural systems, planning and public policy, including public officials from across the region, to develop ideas for a regional infrastructure investment framework that can advance Philadelphia as the center of a prosperous 21st-century metropolitan region. Working in coordination with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, the charrette tested the implications of a regional transportation and natural systems framework on key sites in and around Philadelphia while exploring the relationship between evolving federal policy and regional economic geography. While Greater Philadelphia has significant assets, its transportation infrastructure and natural systems frameworks struggle to keep pace with the diffuse development patterns that characterize the region. The charrette was held from July 27 through July 29 at the School of Design of the University of Pennsylvania. The workshop was convened by PennDesign, orchestrated by PennPraxis and supported by the newly-formed Planning Collective. The Penn Institute for Urban Research hosted the public event organized in conjunction with the charrette on the evening of July 29, which brought together charrette team leaders and top city officials to discuss new visions for urban infrastructure. The workshop was funded by a grant from the William Penn Foundation and with the support of the Office of the Provost of the University of Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission served as the executive client.

and the Obama administrationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s policy objectives designed to stimulate collaborative metropolitan regional investment strategies, exemplified by the Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities adopted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency. With federal agencies working on integrated urban policy and Congress poised to draft legislation that will affect infrastructure funding in the coming months, the Greater Philadelphia region has an important opportunity to articulate a vision that can position the region for economic growth, while serving as a model for other regions across the country. Over the last 30 years, Greater Philadelphia has successfully reinvented itself, but it struggles to keep up with other comparable metropolitan areas in terms of population and employment growth. In order to seize this opportunity, the region must respond to changing patterns in the ways we work and live, how we move goods and people throughout the region, and where economic development occurs. It means thinking more clearly about the profound connections between infrastructure investment and land use policy. Targeted federal funding affords us the impetus to advance ideas for a dynamic, progressive and collaborative regional conversationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;one based on mutual interests that could enable Greater Philadelphia to define an agenda leveraging our regional competitive economic advantages. Several organizations have been engaged in such conversations throughout the region, including the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s long-range plan for

Executive Summary

2035, and the newly formed Metropolitan Caucus (a coalition of Philadelphia-area elected leaders), the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce and the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia. New ideas can inform these conversations and energize regional coalitions to work together toward a common purpose, as well as make specific contributions to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission as it begins its first comprehensive planning process in more than four decades. This is an opportunity to begin to frame a regional discussion around long-term goals and strategies for infrastructure investments connected to integrated and mutually supportive land use, resource management and transportation policies. The legacies of Philadelphia—its railroads, natural systems, and culture—must advance to meet 21st century challenges if the region is to find and build upon its competitive advantage in the global economy.

existing transit and open space systems.

Organizing Principles At the federal level, the Office of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have established principles that are intended to guide federal investment choices in enhancing sustainable communities. The principles challenge local governments and civic leaders to develop ideas for regionally-connected transportation, energy, housing and environmental projects that transcend political boundaries. These principles which provided a foundation for the work of the charrette are: Provide more transportation choices — Develop safe, reliable and economical transportation choices to

BELOW: A map of the 10-county Greater Philadelphia region, running from Mercer County, N.J., in the northeast to New Castle County, Del., in the southwest.

Defining the Region

For the purpose of this charrette, “Greater Philadelphia” was defined as the following 10 counties in three adjoining states: • Pennsylvania: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Philadelphia • New Jersey: Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Mercer • Delaware: New Castle This is a “no boundaries” definition of the region, drawn to extend from Wilmington, Del., to Trenton, N.J., and encompass all of the economic centers in between. The region was defined to show the full extent of population and employment centers that are interconnected (with Philadelphia at the core) by

o st

ile

Mercer Bucks Montgomery

Chester Philadelphia Delaware

New Castle

0 14

t es

Burlington

Camden

Gloucester

DC 0 2.5 5

20 Miles

PennPraxis/Planning Collective

Executive Summary

BELOW: A “dot density” map of the region shows relative concentration of employment (purple) and population (green) throughout Greater Philadelphia. A larger version of this map can be found on page 28.

decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality,

funding toward existing communities—through such strategies as transit-oriented, mixed-use development

reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote public health. Promote equitable, affordable housing — Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation. Enhance economic competitiveness — Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic needs by workers, as well as expanded business access to markets. Support existing communities — Target federal

and land recycling—to increase community revitalization, improve the efficiency of public works investments and safeguard rural landscapes. Coordinate policies and leverage investment — Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such as investing in locally generated renewable energy. Value communities and neighborhoods — Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe and walkable neighborhoods—rural, urban or suburban.

Process Overview The charrette was held from July 27 through July 29, 2009, and involved more 90 participants from city, regional and state government; local design professionals; national experts in economics, transportation and urban design; and other stakeholders.

0 2.5 5

20 Miles

US Census, 2000; Wharton Business Analyst, 2008 PennPraxis/Planning Collective

July 27: Economic Geography of Greater Philadelphia • Ryan Sweet, senior economist from Moody’s Economy.com, presented an economic overview of Greater Philadelphia. This was followed by a respondent panel featuring Barry Seymour, executive director of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission; Steve Wray, executive director of the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia; and Tom Morr, president and CEO of Select Greater

Executive Summary

Philadelphia. A summary of the presentation and discussion can be found on page 21 of the report. July 28: Investigating Regional Infrastructure Investments Three teams explored transportation systems and natural systems on a regional scale in order to develop ideas for an infrastructure investment framework for the 10-county region that can advance Philadelphia as the center of a prosperous 21st-century region. Philadelphia International Airport was also looked at in its role as an international gateway to Philadelphia and the potential for increased transportation connections that would boost economic development as well as the general image of the region. • Transportation: Rachel Weinberger, PennDesign, team leader • Natural Systems: Alex Krieger, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, team leader • Philadelphia International Airport: Marilyn Jordan Taylor, PennDesign, and Derek Moore, Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP, team leaders July 29: Testing Regional Systems in Philadelphia Three teams explored the relationship between the regional systems thinking from the day before and their implications on city planning and urban design in Philadelphia. Working with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission as the executive client, the charrette tested the implications of a regional transportation and natural systems framework on key sites in Philadelphia while exploring the relationship between federal policy, regional economic geography and sustainability. • Citywide Systems: Alex Krieger, Harvard

University Graduate School of Design, and Trent Lethco, Arup Inc., team leaders • Philadelphia International Airport: Derek Moore, Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP, team leader • Central Schuylkill Urban Design: Marilyn Jordan Taylor, PennDesign, and Cindy Sanders, Olin Partnership, team leaders

Emerging Concepts The charrette produced many exciting ideas, both original and synthesized from work done over the last year, last decade, or even the last century. Some of the ideas are big-picture concepts that will take many years to study and achieve, while others seem achievable in the near term. Most will require a change in how we view our regional assets and RIGHT: Members of the Citywide Systems group discuss priority transportation and open space systems projects within Philadelphia that would have immediate regional impact.

Executive Summary

RIGHT: Team leader Alex Krieger of the Harvard Graduate School of Design (left) discusses regional transportation projects with representatives from 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania, DVRPC, PennDOT and the Wilmington Area Planning Council.

liabilities and the way we make choices about limited infrastructure investment dollars. All will take regional

this metropolitan moment to plan and build the infrastructure that will enhance its economic

cooperation to begin to move forward in a meaningful way. Perhaps the most important overarching concept to emerge from the charrette is that we must not only plan for growth, but we must do so using a methodology and framework for strategic investments that build on existing assets and economic centers. Only with a cohesive strategy will we be equipped to make the necessary choices to turn those plans into reality. Metropolitan regions that plan cooperatively are best positioned to compete for new federal transportation funding programs and sustainable community initiatives. As the charrette participants discussed, Greater Philadelphia must act now to seize

competitiveness over the coming decades. The HUD-DOT-EPA principles rely on coordination between land use, infrastructure investment, conservation and economic goals. To reach the outcomes suggested by the principles, we must, at the municipal and regional levels, systematize a process for choice-making related to achieving the systemic efficiencies the principles support. This will likely require new methods of study to determine possible coordination of energy generation and distribution, water use and protection, land development and preservation, and strategic investment in infrastructure of all types. This will also require openness to planning for infrastructure obsolescence, right-sizing and

Executive Summary

removal, planning across political boundaries, and long-term stewardship strategies for contaminated

Philadelphia to the airport is an example of the type of priority-driven, coordinated regional infrastructure

land and water resources. This means creating new methods for evaluating the “bottom line” of projects, which should include sustainability goals for ecology, economy and equity. The collaboration among city and regional officials at the charrette indicates an interest in regional problem-solving and demonstrates the type of cooperation that could make Greater Philadelphia a more competitive and better integrated metropolitan region. Collaboration and cross-county dialogue will allow us to explore innovative regional strategies that could help us create, as team leader Alex Krieger said after the charrette, “the first fully networked metropolis of this century.” The following overarching concepts emerged from the design workshop:

investments that the region needs in order to remain competitive going forward. In the end, the work of the Airport group focused on defining an enhanced transit connection with reliable, dedicated service between 30th Street Station (as an intermodal hub) and a new and inviting, world-class, multimodal Ground Transportation Center at the airport. Opportunities for further study: As national high-speed rail is routed through the Philadelphia region, there will be an opportunity to configure the alignment to maximize connections to leverage the region’s economic potential. The work in the Airport and Central Schuylkill groups demonstrated that there are many options for possible connections,

Enhance Access to the Airport (Through High-Speed Rail or Other Modes) The study suggests that, more than in most cities, the proximity of Center City Philadelphia, the industrial lands of the Central and Lower Schuylkill, and the Philadelphia Navy Yard to Philadelphia International Airport would allow for the city itself to develop as an “aerotropolis.” Existing airport plans begin to unlock the design constraints created by its relatively small existing site to allow for future efficient configuration of its terminals and back-of-house operations, providing opportunities to improve existing connections and create new ones. Many choices for connections were explored during the charrette; in fact, the thinking at the charrette around high-speed rail and creating a new Amtrak alignment through

BELOW: A map digitized after the charrette that shows the Airport group’s vision for numerous new public transportation connections to the airport, including a “green” SEPTA Regional Rail corridor. A larger version of this map can be found on page 77.

Executive Summary

BELOW: A sketch drawn by charrette participants Mami Hara of WRT and David Schaaf of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission outlining the region’s riparian corridors and headwaters.

and the relative proximity of Philadelphia’s regional work centers to the airport is a unique competitive

Natural Systems Integration Well-planned and successful natural systems can

advantage to be exploited. Greater Philadelphia should collaborate around planning Amtrak high-speed rail connections and alignments through the region, even if actual stops in the region are limited. As airport planning proceeds, the process should coordinate with regional goals for economic growth, maximize reliable connections, create opportunities for efficiencies in freight and people movement, and respect Greater Philadelphia’s character. A key choice in this process will be to determine which connections (Center City, the Navy Yard, Central/Lower Schuylkill, others?) will return the most benefit in terms of realizing the efficiencies suggested in the HUD-DOT-EPA principles.

enhance economic prosperity, promote public health and strengthen existing communities. There are vast opportunities in the Philadelphia region, from capitalizing on vacant land to creating a regional agenda across natural systems. The concepts that emerged were: • Regional thinking is paramount: Because almost all of our watersheds are shared across county and state boundaries, we must share responsibility for regional water management, particularly for headwater protection, to ensure that water quality issues are stopped at the source. • As the regional economy has changed, land use strategy is as important for open space as it is for developed space, particularly because many of our “open spaces” have been affected by man-made intervention and require management. Opportunities for further study: • A process by which open space resources and opportunities are surveyed and identified on a regional scale would be helpful in creating an agenda for natural systems protection, watershed and stormwater management, and interim land management strategies. This process would identify connections between resources and opportunities for cooperation between governments, and assert best practices for stewardship and economic development, in areas such as urban agriculture, landscape detoxification and sustainable stormwater management. • From this process, a recognizable agenda should be established for underutilized or naturalized land. This may mean organizing the land assets into

Executive Summary

individual systems within the larger whole. These systems could be aligned with watersheds, rights-of-

multipurpose potential of integrated infrastructure. Efficiencies can be created by the seemingly

way or other common patterns that will enable a comprehensive rehabilitation and stewardship to be realized. Making the connections among these lands explicit will enable further connections to be made to transportation infrastructure of all modes, land use patterns and energy use. • Explore a new regional institution charged with supporting the regional network of open spaces, and provide a funding mechanism that may provide a dedicated funding stream for open-space-related projects in those municipalities that choose to participate.

competing goals of people and goods movement systems, parks and transportation, and development all sharing dedicated infrastructure while creating a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Charrette participants recognized that the region’s systems physically transcend political boundaries, and should be planned and funded in a similar cross-boundary fashion. This requires each project to be evaluated in its own context, but is a crucial part of planning in a meaningful and integrated way; as was discussed in one charrette group, don’t “fill gaps like potholes.” Opportunities for further study: As the HUD-DOT-EPA principles suggest, coordination between housing and transportation

Create Integrated and Interdependent Infrastructure Perhaps the most valuable part of any collaborative exercise is the nontraditional exploration of ideas, which is at the heart of innovation. The integrative approach brought to the charrette by its team leaders and participants meant that infrastructure would be approached as multifaceted: an asset that could have broad impacts across sectors if leveraged successfully. This means expanding past highway projects, rail lines, storm sewers, green and natural infrastructure to plan around “infrastructure sheds” and “energy sheds,” where energy production and consumption is planned for and made more efficient in correlation with other systems. Embedded in this concept is the exploration of infrastructure “strange bedfellows” in which transportation, open space, energy and other 1 large-scale investments are integrated and aligned across regional boundaries. One needs only look to the 2 traditional American parkway system for the

BELOW: A digitized map showing the beginning of a “gap analysis” done by the Citywide Systems group that begins to look at transportation and open space investments as connected.

NEW TRANSIT TRAIL + BIKE + GREEN STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONECTIONS NEW+RE-OPENED STATIONS NORTH BROAD

center city to temple university

2 1

CENTENNIAL DISTRICT DELAWARE WATERFRONT

WATER TAXI

18 mi

Executive Summary

BELOW: This map shows the highway improvement projects in the region receiving funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Many cities and counties are currently lobbying Washington independently, so an opportunity exists to coordinate efforts and potentially secure increased funding.

investments means a commitment to making new development more sustainable. As corridors like

Erase the Boundaries That Divide Us Politically

Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, many SEPTA rights of way, I-95 and I-76 are rebuilt in the coming decades, an opportunity exists for the region to see return from well-planned, integrated investments. In planning for these investments, the region should seek to maximize connections between housing, transportation, energy, water and waste system infrastructure to begin to create corridors of infrastructure that realize efficiency in economy, energy and environmental benefit. This would position Philadelphia and the region for lower-cost growth as the infrastructure yields private investment in coming years.

On the first night of the workshop, Barry Seymour, the executive director of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, urged participants to erase the region’s political boundaries in organizing their thinking and work product during the charrette. An examination of regional growth and development maps without the county lines reveals how infrastructure, when broadly defined, has shaped our region more than jurisdictional boundaries, yet none have effectively restrained the potential to sprawl. The participants of the charrette, representing state, county, city and stakeholder interests, used this directive as a way to explore possibilities unconstrained by funding disparities, decision-making divisions and political interests. The frank conversation that resulted yielded exciting ideas to explore, and initiated relationships between planning and governmental staff, which may be helpful in future collaborations. Recognizing Greater Philadelphia’s smart future will mean acknowledging the tensions and tradeoffs that come with regional change. The city’s population loss is the suburbs’ sprawl. Moving forward will require both common ground and a shared purpose to achieve something meaningful. Opportunities for further action: • Explore a framework for choice-making (differentiated from decision-making by the constraints that finite resources impose) that allows for objective cost and benefits to be established in an open and transparent process that invites accountability for leaders and rewards principle-based arbitration. Principles could be based on national guidelines as well as local sustainability goals and other regional

Montgomery County I-76 Off-ramp Improvement $14,500,000 Montgomery County I-476 Roadway Reconstruction $90,000,000

Chester County Chester Valley Trail Phase I $5,208,414

Bucks County Stoopville Rd Improvements $1,700,000

Chester County US 30 Exton Bypass $6,000,000 Chester County State St Bridge Removal $1,100,000

Chester County Tredyffrin Twp Sidewalks Phase I $2,800,000

< $5 M $5-10 M $10-25 M

Philadelphia County Girard Pt. Bridge Repair $66,000,000

>$25 M 0 2.5 5

20 Miles

PennDOT, 2009; NJDOT, 2009 PennPraxis/Planning Collective

New Castle County Newark Toll Plaza Reconstruction $43,000,000

Philadelphia County Center City Resurfacing $6,471,000

Camden and Gloucester Counties I-295 Rehabilitation $84,000,000

Executive Summary

benchmarks. This process would emphasize systemic thinking, would avoid focusing on one-off individual

about improvements are made by confederations of competing local governments or according to trend-

projects, and would be as thorough in its analysis as it is explicit in its outcomes. Achieving this goal will be difficult but presents a healthy alternative, giving regional leaders an opportunity to learn more about their partners in this effort. This could ultimately lead to reopening discussions such as regionalizing the port authority or initiating new discussions like regionalizing the airport authority and open space governance. • Plan for the long term, and act in the short term. Plans can be fulfilled over decades, but inevitably they begin with small steps that compound into big moves. As the region moves toward identifying opportunities for investment and making plans for achieving them, early actions, especially those that are low-cost, should be expedited to help projects gain momentum. Philadelphia’s bike plan initiative on Spruce and Pine streets is an example of a project that is forward-thinking and experimental, and requires very little upfront investment to produce real change. • Provide the newly formed Metropolitan Caucus with useful data and best-practice information to positively affect projects where regional partners share common interests.

based computer models. As suggested in DVRPC’s Connections 2035 recentralization growth scenario, the region must prioritize existing areas of economic strength, not just by identifying them but by coordinating public and private investment around them. This means blurring county and municipal boundaries in order to make the best decision for the region as a whole. There must be a new system of prioritizing criteria with benchmarks and standards so that planning organizations may be held accountable. Nationally, this raises the question of the effectiveness of the Metropolitan Planning Organization model in today’s shifting landscape.

Rethink the Current MPO Structure to Meet the Needs of a “Metro Nation.” Numerous charrette groups questioned if the current national model of allocating federal transportation funding and decision-making to regional metropolitan planning organizations is the appropriate model going forward. Many noted that strategic growth of our transportation network cannot occur when decisions

LEFT: A sketch drawn by Michael Larice of PennDesign and Nando Micale of WRT showing proposed transportation improvements across the Central and Lower Schuylkill site to improve regional connectivity and transit access for underserved neighborhoods.

Executive Summary

Transit investment decisions linked to goals that support the future growth of the region have the

of the two days of small-group work and are offered as a springboard for further discussion.

greatest chance of success, and if those goals include reinforcing the notion of supporting existing economic centers, then this could prove problematic for current MPO governing boards. Metropolitan Planning Organizations are well equipped for study and analysis, but less so for the agenda-setting and leadership required to guide visionary projects on the regional scale. Opportunities for further study: Work locally and nationally to ensure that Metropolitan Planning Organizations like the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission are resourced properly to guide the integrative thinking and provide the leadership required to meet the goals of the HUD-DOT-EPA Sustainable Communities principles. This may require an examination both of the funding mechanisms that support the MPO network and of the enabling legislation that created it. Rethinking the current MPO structure to create a regional planning authority with strategic decision-making power may become essential if a shared vision for the Greater Philadelphia region is to be achieved.

PennDesign is dedicated to improving the quality of life through the design and preservation of artworks, buildings, landscapes, cities, and regions. The School’s distinctive contributions to this effort lie at the intersection of the integrated design arts as they are rooted in the research of technologists, historians, and social scientists. Professional master’s degrees are awarded in architecture, city planning, landscape architecture fine arts, historic preservation, and urban spatial analytics. The Ph.D. is offered in architecture and city planning. The School provides certificate programs in a range of areas including real estate design and development, urban design, ecological architecture, and GIS and spatial analysis. Courses of study in fine arts, architecture, and digital media design are available to undergraduates. The University of Pennsylvania School of Design is also home to the T.C. Chan Center for Building Simulation and Energy Studies, PennPraxis, and the Penn Institute for Urban Research.

--The concepts expressed herein reflect the work and conversations of the 2009 Philadelphia Regional Infrastructure Charrette. They are not the views of PennDesign, PennPraxis, Penn Institute for Urban Research, Philadelphia City Planning Commission, William Penn Foundation or the Office of the Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, nor are they presented as recommendations. They are the products

PennPraxis is the clinical consulting arm of the Penn School of Design. It was created in 2001 to further the mission of the school in its five fields: architecture, landscape architecture, city planning, historic preservation, and fine arts. Praxis creates opportunities for PennDesign faculty and students to work on practical or applied projects around the world, providing opportunities to strengthen community ties and provide service to the community. Several PennPraxis projects have focused on participatory planning processes that marry local community

Executive Summary

expertise and professional design knowledge, including the award-winning A Civic Vision for the Central

to nature and community. In partnership with others, the Foundation works to advance a vital, just, and

Delaware, Penn’s Landing Design forums, and Re-Envisioning the Kimmel Center through Civic Engagement and Design.

caring community.

Penn Institute for Urban Research is dedicated to fostering increased understanding of cities and developing new knowledge bases that will be vital in charting the course of local national and international urbanization. By providing an umbrella structure for the urban focused scholarship, research and civic engagement within Penn’s twelve schools, the Penn IUR provides the synergy needed to address urban challenges in the 21st century. As a campus-wide institute, Penn IUR sponsors a number of initiatives, stimulates research, provides opportunities for collaborative instruction and engages with the world of practitioners and policymakers. Philadelphia City Planning Commission is responsible for guiding the orderly growth and development of the City of Philadelphia. The 1951 Home Rule Charter defines the powers and duties of the Commission to include the preparation of: • A Comprehensive Plan and its modifications; • The Capital Program and Budget; • Proposed zoning ordinances and amendments; • Regulations concerning the subdivision of land. William Penn Foundation, founded in 1945 by Otto and Phoebe Haas, is dedicated to improving the quality of life in the Greater Philadelphia region through efforts that foster rich cultural expression, strengthen children’s futures, and deepen connections

The Provost of the University of Pennsylvania oversees all aspects of the university related to teaching, research, and scholarship. The Provost works in tandem with the President and Executive VicePresident on university oversight and planning, including budgets, capital projects, and long-range strategic planning. In recent years, the Provost, working closely with faculty and other campus leaders, has developed a wide range of initiatives focused on strengthened recruitment and retention of faculty (with particular attention to female and minority faculty), promotion of interdisciplinary scholarship and teaching (including the Penn Integrates Knowledge Program), enhanced internationalization, and increased support for undergraduate and graduate education.

Regional Rail to Shelly

Bus Rapid Tr on US 1

Rt. 100 to King of Prussia Mall

Atlantic City Line/River Line Transfer Station

egional Rail o Atglen

Regional Rail to Wawa

Rt. 36 to Eastwick

Waterfront Light Rail

setting the stage Rail Transit to Glassboro

Setting the Stage

Economics of the Region A primary goal of the infrastructure charrette was to identify infrastructure investments that would make Philadelphia more competitive in the national and global economies. To give context to the work of the charrette, Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody’s Economy.com, presented an overview of the economic geography of Greater Philadelphia. Sweet began by noting that, while the current recession was damaging, Greater Philadelphia had survived comparable setbacks in 1980-’81, 1990 and 2001. On an encouraging note, the region had shown gains over the past 10 years in financial and business services, as well as in the education and healthcare industries; in fact, the number of jobs in “eds and meds” industries increased by almost 200 percent.

In comparison with the top 100 metropolitan areas between 1999 and 2008, Greater Philadelphia lagged behind in employment (ranked 32nd) and population growth (45th), both well behind national averages, but proved competitive in real per capita income (17th) and output per worker (15th). In discussing the state of Philadelphia’s economy, Sweet noted that while growth in certain industries has helped the city offset the economic consequences of population loss, high crime and poverty continue to negatively affect the city’s economic health. Washington, D.C., Boston and the nation as a whole a witnessed significant decline in violent crime over the past 10 years; though it decreased this year, Philadelphia’s crime rate has remained relatively constant. Since 2000, Philadelphia’s poverty rate

Philadelphia Successfully Reinvents Itself…

Industry Financial activities Insurance Carriers and Related Activities Credit Intermediation and Related Activities Professional and business services Legal services Education and healthcare Hospitals Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools Manufacturing IT using Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing

Location quotient average 1999 to 2008 1.32 1.37 1.41 1.16 1.59 1.41 1.46 2.42 0.80 1.26 3.33

*Change in employment due to a change in industry employment Sources: BLS, IMPLAN, Moody's Economy.com

Employment growth Multiplier* average annualized growth, 1999-2008 0.22 -0.40 2.5 -0.49 2.2 1.33 1.44 1.9 1.97 0.74 1.8 1.26 1.5 -3.10 3.2 0.47 -0.53 5.4

BELOW: Charts from Ryan Sweet’s presentation show industry location quotients as well as how Greater Philadelphia compares to other regions in terms of population, employment and income.

…But Struggles to Keep Up

Average annualized growth, 1999 to 2008 Top 100 metro areas determined by population Source: Moody's Economy.com Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32

Metro area Las Vegas, NV Riverside, CA Austin, TX Phoenix, AZ Orlando, FL Raleigh, NC Washington, DC Charlotte, NC San Antonio, TX Sacramento, CA Salt Lake City, UT Houston, TX Tucson, AZ San Diego, CA Jacksonville, FL Dallas, TX Miami, FL Atlanta, GA Nashville, TN Indianapolis, IN Oklahoma City, OK Seattle, WA Tampa, FL Richmond, VA Denver, CO Philadelphia, PA U.S. average

Employment 4.10 3.36 2.65 2.55 2.50 2.46 2.00 1.94 1.93 1.91 1.88 1.86 1.75 1.64 1.60 1.54 1.46 1.34 1.28 1.27 1.23 1.19 1.19 1.17 1.13 0.61 0.86

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45

Metro area Las Vegas, NV Raleigh, NC Austin, TX Phoenix, AZ Charlotte, NC Atlanta, GA Riverside, CA Orlando, FL Dallas, TX Houston, TX Tucson, AZ San Antonio, TX Nashville, TN Sacramento, CA Denver, CO Jacksonville, FL Salt Lake City, UT Portland, OR Tampa, FL Indianapolis, IN Washington, DC Richmond, VA Columbus, OH Seattle, WA Oklahoma City, OK Philadelphia, PA U.S. average

Population 4.03 3.79 3.62 3.34 2.98 2.97 2.83 2.72 2.50 2.35 2.21 2.05 2.01 1.99 1.85 1.83 1.67 1.64 1.57 1.47 1.46 1.36 1.18 1.17 1.15 0.34 0.98

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Real per capita income Metro area New Orleans, LA 7.46 Oklahoma City, OK 3.41 San Jose, CA 2.59 San Diego, CA 2.56 Houston, TX 2.45 San Francisco, CA 2.45 Baltimore, MD 2.41 Virginia Beach, VA 2.26 Washington, DC 2.24 Boston, MA 2.19 Birmingham, AL 2.17 Pittsburgh, PA 2.09 Miami, FL 2.04 Providence, RI 2.03 New York, NY 1.91 Seattle, WA 1.89 Philadelphia, PA 1.88 Los Angeles, CA 1.81 San Antonio, TX 1.80 Hartford, CT 1.70 Jacksonville, FL 1.68 Salt Lake City, UT 1.67 Richmond, VA 1.65 Denver, CO 1.64 Tucson, AZ 1.53 U.S. average

1.57

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Output per worker, ths $ Metro area New York, NY 112.09 Hartford, CT 111.82 San Francisco, CA 111.07 San Jose, CA 107.22 San Diego, CA 107.20 Los Angeles, CA 105.71 Houston, TX 105.21 Washington, DC 100.59 Sacramento, CA 97.43 Seattle, WA 97.25 Boston, MA 97.21 Denver, CO 93.42 Buffalo, NY 93.12 Dallas, TX 92.60 Philadelphia, PA 91.73 Rochester, NY 91.51 New Orleans, LA 91.27 Riverside, CA 91.21 Chicago, IL 90.51 Charlotte, NC 89.23 Virginia Beach, VA 89.12 Atlanta, GA 88.49 Richmond, VA 86.76 Portland, OR 85.43 Detroit, MI 85.27 U.S. average

86.38

Setting the Stage

BELOW: This map shows the extent of the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries in Greater Philadelphia, which consist of 261 companies with more than 20 employees.

jumped from 18 percent to 25 percent, while the national average stayed between 11 and 14 percent.

with peer East Coast cities. Philadelphia’s share of port activity as a percentage of all U.S. trade was

Over the last century, settlement and employment patterns in the region have changed dramatically. Commuting patterns have shifted as the number of people living in Philadelphia but working outside city limits has more than doubled since 1960. Annual population loss in Philadelphia County averaged between -0.2 and -1.3 percent between 1999 and 2008, while surrounding counties experienced population changes from as little as -0.2 percent to as high as 3.5 percent annual growth. Sweet cited the high cost of doing business in the region as a hindrance to the region’s economy. Sweet also highlighted two areas that show promise in keeping Greater Philadelphia competitive

11.6 percent this year, exceeding Boston, Baltimore and New York City. Furthermore, Philadelphia International Airport served more passengers than Logan International, Newark Liberty, JFK and BWI in both 2005 and 2009 (year-ending in April). Following the presentation, Susan Wachter, professor of real estate at the Wharton School of Business and co-director of the Penn Institute for Urban Research, moderated a panel discussion with Barry Seymour, executive director of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission; Steve Wray, executive director of the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia; and Tom Morr, president and CEO of Select Greater Philadelphia.

! ! Biotech/Pharmaceuticals (81)

Life Science & Engineering Research (30) Laboratories (74)

Highways

20 Miles

Select Greater Philadelphia PennPraxis/Planning Collective

! ! !

!! 95 ! !! 0 2.5 5

! ! !!

! !

! 1

! ! 95 ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! 202 !! ! ! ! ! ! 422 ! ! ! ! ! 195 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! 276 ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! 95! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! 76 ! ! !! ! ! ! 1 ! !! ! ! !! ! ! NJT ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! 130 476 !! ! ! ! 38 !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! 70 ! ! ! 1 ! !! 676 !! 95 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 202 !! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 295 NJT 30 ! ! ! ! !! 42 !! 495 ! ! !! ! !

Medical Equipment Manufacturing (76) 1

! !

m 1

! 95

Throughout the discussion, audience members and respondents identified several concepts and frameworks for strengthening the economy of the region, including: • Recognizing the region as a diffuse array of centers and thinking of ways to connect them meaningfully. • Looking beyond county and municipal boundaries to see Greater Philadelphia as a region, and thinking about its assets as collective assets. • Capturing the competitive advantage of an educated labor force by identifying the jobs of the future and training residents in related skills. • Anticipating possible changes in the region’s leading economic drivers—higher education and the life sciences. • More aggressively leveraging Philadelphia’s central location on the Northeast Corridor, which

Setting the Stage

places it at an advantage to tap financial and regulatory opportunities in New York and Washington.

nine counties (does not include New Castle County, Del.)

• Thinking and acting regionally. The Metropolitan Caucus is a first step in breaking down political barriers that inhibit the region’s economic growth. • Leveraging natural systems, which, like other forms of infrastructure, play a role in improving quality of life and providing economic benefits. • Examining the symbiosis of creating places that attract and retain a mobile workforce. If people want to be here, so will businesses. • Examining multiple alternatives, as there is no single solution, but a pattern of strategic decisions that span education, taxes and regional cooperation that will make the Philadelphia region competitive in the 21st century.

• Select Greater Philadelphia: 11 counties (includes Salem County, N.J.) • Philadelphia City Planning Commission: as it begins its comprehensive planning process, PCPC is examining the region as 12 counties (DVRPC + Salem County, N.J., and Cecil County, Md.) with an area of influence that extends as far as the Lehigh Valley, Atlantic City and into Northern New Jersey.

Overview of the Region For the charrette, Greater Philadelphia was defined as 10 counties, drawn to extend from Wilmington, Del., to Trenton, N.J., to show the full extent of population and employment centers that are connected (with the Philadelphia core in the middle) by existing transit and open space systems. Pennsylvania: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Philadelphia New Jersey: Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Mercer Delaware: New Castle This region connects to other cities and regions; in fact, Trenton is its own Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and is not within Philadelphia’s MSA. Other definitions of the Philadelphia region include: • Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission:

Before the charrette group work began, two speakers, Paul Levy and Mark Alan Hughes, elaborated on the region’s strengths and weaknesses, many of which were discussed by the panel the night before. Levy, executive director of Center City District,

BELOW: Former sustainability director and current PennDesign Distinguished Senior Fellow Mark Alan Hughes discusses Greater Philadelphia’s role in the green economy.

Setting the Stage

said that finding ways to prioritize infrastructure investments is critical to seeing investments achieve

of reducing their energy consumption. Additionally, value will be created by thinking of new forms of

their highest return for the city. Despite assets like having the third largest downtown residential population in the country, being centrally positioned along the Northeast Corridor, having an airport that is only a 22-minute rail connection to Center City, and access to three interstate highways, Philadelphia has continually lost population over the past several decades. “This is a set of stairs,” said Levy, “that is leading to oblivion, and until we change this pattern we are not going to change the success of the city and the region.” Levy argues that high taxes force firms to move out of the city and to locate jobs beyond the reach of transit, which is a “continual undermining of the stability of residential neighborhoods—a continual path toward poverty for many people.” Making Philadelphia more competitive will require reducing taxes, but also new infrastructure investments. Levy concluded by submitting five criteria for prioritizing those investments. According to Levy, investments should (1) achieve sustainability objectives, (2) advance the 21st-century economy, (3) go where passengers are located, (4) focus on leftover areas from the industrial age, and (5) yield the highest tax return to the city. On the subject of infrastructure investments, rising energy prices may be a blessing in disguise for cities, according to former director of the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, Mark Alan Hughes. Hughes asserts that as the demand for energy conservation increases, Philadelphia’s “inherited liabilities” will be transformed into “appreciating assets.” A dense urban form, in other words, will gain value as consumers and utility providers seek out the most cost-effective way

sustainable infrastructure investments. Sustainable (or green) infrastructure could take the form of simply planting more trees, a cost-effective investment when factoring in a wider set of benefits: everything from the shade they provide to lower air conditioning demand and stormwater runoff reduction. This holistic way of thinking ties into Hughes’ idea of the “energyshed,” which involves seeing how planning for energy efficiency affects other systems as well. Hughes concluded by saying that if the federal government starts to regulate carbon emissions, then dense cities like Philadelphia stand to prosper. The maps on the following pages were prepared as background for the charrette group work. They give an overview of the region through such lenses as employment, population and transportation systems. For more maps, see the companion document Philadelphia: A Mapbook of the Metropolitan Area, which should be released before the end of 2009.

Setting the Stage

s ile

Mercer Bucks Montgomery

Chester Philadelphia Delaware

New Castle

ile

Burlington

Camden

Gloucester

DC 0 2.5 5

20 Miles

PennPraxis/Planning Collective ABOVE: This map shows the tristate, 10-county area defined as â&#x20AC;&#x153;Greater Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;? for the charrette.

Setting the Stage

New York 8,739,345

Philadelphia 3,968,278

500,000 1,000,000 5,000,000

Washington 4,489,955 10,000,000 0

7.5

40 Miles

Amtrak, 2008 PennPraxis/Planning Collective

ABOVE: This map shows the relative number of passenger boardings and landings at each major Amtrak station along the Northeast Corridor. Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 30th Street Station is the third-largest passenger hub, topped only by the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic (New York) and political (Washington, D.C.) capitals.

Setting the Stage

NY-NJ 157,202,043

Marcus Hook 24,253,826 Wilmington 4,132,428

Baltimore 41,250,672

Philadelphia 35,148,631

Camden 6,906,893

Paulsboro 37,984,437 New Castle 7,026,474

Greater Philadelphia Total 115,452,689

4,000,000 8,000,000 40,000,000

80,000,000 0

7.5

40 Miles

Select Greater Philadelphia PennPraxis/Planning Collective

ABOVE: This map shows the relative tonnage of the various port authorities along the Northeast Corridor. Though much has been said about the decline of the Port of Philadelphia, the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ports combine to process more than 115 million tons of materials each year. While the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a single entity, Greater Philadelphia includes multiple port authorities that oversee separate operations along the Delaware River.

Setting the Stage

0 2.5 5

20 Miles

US Census, 2000; Wharton Business Analyst, 2008

PennPraxis/Planning Collective ABOVE: This map shows the relative density of population and employment across the region by using colored dots to signify concentration. Each green dot represents 300 residents and each purple dot represents 300 jobs. Those geographic areas with the most overlapping dots represent the densest centers in the region. While we see the strongest concentration of jobs and residents in Philadelphia, the remaining population and employment is widely dispersed across the region, typically running along highway corridors. Other traditional cities like Wilmington, Del., and Trenton, N.J., are exceptions.

Setting the Stage

0 0.5 1

4 Miles

US Census, 2000; Wharton Business Analyst, 2008 PennPraxis/Planning Collective ABOVE: This map uses â&#x20AC;&#x153;dot densityâ&#x20AC;? to show the relative concentrations of population and employment within Philadelphia itself. Each green dot represents 100 residents and each purple dot represents 100 jobs. Center City and University City are the two main areas with dense population and employment, while most other parts of the city are either predominantly residential or job centers.

Setting the Stage

Census tracts with more than 12 households per acre (LEED-ND standard for transit) Mercer

Census tracts with more than 50 jobs per acre Census tracts that meet both housing and employment concentration thresholds

Bucks Montgomery

Chester Philadelphia Delaware

New Castle

0 2.5 5

20 Miles

U.S. Census, 2000; Wharton Business Analyst, 2008

Burlington

Camden

Gloucester

PennPraxis/Planning Collective ABOVE: This map shows areas of population and employment density by highlighting census tracts that meet certain concentration thresholds. In this case, 12 households per acre and 50 jobs per acre are the marks the Transportation Research Board recommends for justifying light rail transit. The purple tracts meet both thresholds, and are largely focused in Center City Philadelphia.

Setting the Stage

Census tracts with more than 12 households per acre (LEED-ND standard for transit) Census tracts with more than 20 jobs per acre* Census tracts that meet both housing and employment concentration thresholds *Threshold adjusted from 50 to 20 jobs per acre to capture smaller census tract sizes in a high density urban setting

N.E. Philadelphia Airport Chestnut Hill Oxford Circle/ Roosevelt Mall Olney/ Germantown Einstein Hospital Manayunk Temple Medicine

East Falls City Line Avenue Temple University

Kensington/ Port Richmond

University City

52nd St. Corridor

0 0.5 1

4 Miles

U.S. Census, 2000; Wharton Business Analyst, 2008 PennPraxis/Planning Collective

Philadelphia International Airport

Center City

Sports Complex Navy Yard

ABOVE: This map uses the same population and employment concentration thresholds to show centers of density within Philadelphia itself. Most areas identified benefit from existing rail transit infrastructure, though some census tracts do not. City centers of density include Center City, University City, the Temple University corridor and pockets of Northeast Philadelphia.

Setting the Stage

0 2.5 5

20 Miles

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2008

PennPraxis/Planning Collective ABOVE: This map shows the regional transportation network of passenger rail (excluding trolleys) in green and highways in purple. This vantage point shows the dense local and regional rail networks in Philadelphia and its inner suburbs, while outlying towns rely more heavily on auto-oriented infrastructure.

Setting the Stage

Regional Rail to Shelly

Bus Rapid Transit on US 1

Rt. 100 to King of Prussia Mall

Atlantic City Line/River Line Transfer Station

Regional Rail to Atglen

Regional Rail to Wawa

Rt. 36 to Eastwick

Waterfront Light Rail

Rail Transit to Glassboro

0 2.5 5

20 Miles

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

PennPraxis/Planning Collective

ABOVE: This map shows the transit improvement projects proposed by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission as part of its 2035 long-range plan. Most are extensions of existing regional rail lines into the suburbs and outlying towns as opposed to links between regional centers of population and employment density.

Setting the Stage

Montgomery County I-76 Off-ramp Improvement $14,500,000 Montgomery County I-476 Roadway Reconstruction $90,000,000

Chester County Chester Valley Trail Phase I $5,208,414

Bucks County Stoopville Rd Improvements $1,700,000

Chester County US 30 Exton Bypass $6,000,000 Chester County State St Bridge Removal $1,100,000

Chester County Tredyffrin Twp Sidewalks Phase I $2,800,000

< $5 M $5-10 M $10-25 M

Philadelphia County Girard Pt. Bridge Repair $66,000,000

>$25 M 0 2.5 5

20 Miles

PennDOT, 2009; NJDOT, 2009 PennPraxis/Planning Collective

Philadelphia County Center City Resurfacing $6,471,000

Camden and Gloucester Counties I-295 Rehabilitation $84,000,000

New Castle County Newark Toll Plaza Reconstruction $43,000,000

ABOVE: This map presents the most recent data from state transportation departments on the allocation of funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) toward regional highway improvements. This shows the significant amount of federal recovery money going toward roadway projects versus transit projects (by comparison, the largest ARRA transit investment in the region is $25 million). Also, it is worth noting that most projects are for deferred highway maintenance and rebuilds as opposed to creating new infrastructure.

Setting the Stage

$0 - $600,000 $600,001 - $2,000,000 $2,000,001 - $3,500,000 $3,500,001 - $5,000,000 $5,000,001 - $14,000,000 Passenger Rail

*Mercer County data incomplete

0 2.5 5

20 Miles

Wharton Business Analyst, 2008

PennPraxis/Planning Collective ABOVE: This map shows how much money is collectively spent on gasoline each year by census tract. Despite the fact that the number of residents in each census tract varies dramatically, this map clearly shows that people drive more and spend more on gas the further they live from centers of density or an integrated public transit network.

charrette discoveries

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

OVERVIEW The 2009 Philadelphia Regional Infrastructure Charrette was held from July 27 through July 29, 2009. It involved more than 90 participants from city, regional and state government; local design professionals; national experts in economics, transportation and urban design; and other stakeholders. Its objective was to develop ideas for a regional infrastructure investment framework that can advance Philadelphia as the center of a prosperous 21st-century metropolitan region. Working with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission as the executive client, the charrette tested the implications of a regional transportation and natural systems framework on key sites in Philadelphia while exploring the relationship between federal policy, regional economic geography, and sustainability. With federal agencies working on integrated urban policy and Congress poised to draft legislation that will affect infrastructure funding in the coming months, the Greater Philadelphia region has the opportunity to articulate a vision that can position us for economic growth, while providing a model for other regions across the country. New ideas can inform these conversations and energize regional coalitions to work together toward common purposes, as well as make specific contributions to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission as it begins its comprehensive planning process. The concepts expressed herein reflect the work and conversations of the 2009 Philadelphia Regional Infrastructure Charrette. They are not the views of PennDesign, PennPraxis, Penn Institute for Urban Research, Philadelphia City Planning Commission, William Penn Foundation or the Office of the Provost

of the University of Pennsylvania, nor are they presented as recommendations. They are the products of the two days of small-group work and are offered as a springboard for further discussion. The ideas were the product of two days of small-group work around five different subject areas: Day 1: Investigating Regional Infrastructure Investments • Transportation • Natural Systems • Philadelphia International Airport Day • • •

2: Testing Regional Systems in Philadelphia Transportation and Natural Systems Philadelphia International Airport Central Schuylkill Urban Design

Please read the following sections to learn more about the charge and findings of each charrette group.

Day 1: Investigating Regional Infrastructure Investments REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION Rachel Weinberger, PennDesign, team leader Existing Conditions The Philadelphia region has a more extensive network of highway and public transportation infrastructure than many other regions in the country. There are numerous public transportation agencies that serve the region (SEPTA, New Jersey Transit, PATCO, Amtrak) as well as infrastructure to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles as well as the

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

BELOW: Team leader Rachel Weinberger of PennDesign (top right) divides the participants into small groups to discuss Philadelphia’s transportation networks.

automobile. Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station is the third busiest station in Amtrak’s network, and SEPTA’s

Charge In today’s world of regional choice and fast-paced

total ridership for FY2008 was 325 million. However, there are also constraints in our regional transportation network. Many highways and bridges are congested and overdue for scheduled maintenance or reconstruction, creating safety concerns for drivers. Passenger rail infrastructure has similar challenges, along with maintaining cleanliness and frequency of service amid serious, ongoing budget shortfalls. Furthermore, there are vacant and underutilized rail (freight and passenger) lines across the region that could be utilized to improve access to areas currently underserved.

travel, it can be argued that transportation access is the key to the region’s success or failure as an economic center along the Northeast Corridor. The goal for this session was to: • Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the region’s highway and transit infrastructure and identify priority improvements. • Devise a list of priority projects that meet the HUD-DOT-EPA Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities principles and that fit into the region’s future vision and identity. • Prioritize the many different requirements of infrastructure: safety, speed, frequency of service, ridership, providing access to new areas, strengthening access to existing areas, etc. • Identify the importance of investing in all types of transportation: heavy rail, light rail, bus, water, highway, non-motorized. • Assess whether the Obama administration’s emphasis on high-speed rail corridors is the key to unlocking the economic potential of the Philadelphia region, or if the answer is elsewhere. • Examine the inactive and underutilized freight rail throughout the region and see if there are valuable linkages that can be established using existing infrastructure. Suggested Questions to Answer • The goals when developing standards for infrastructure projects are … • Which elements of the HUD-DOT-EPA Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

principles will the new transportation system prioritize?

citizens of the Philadelphia region to survive without owning a car because we do not give them the

• For the region to thrive, it is important that it invest in the following types of transportation infrastructure … • Should high-speed rail be the focus of the Philadelphia region’s transportation agenda going forward? • Can any use be made of inactive rail and underutilized freight corridors?

opportunity to do so. We must plan with this goal in mind—cultivating transit-dependent citizens.

Discussion The regional transportation group investigated how to support and improve regional networks through three frameworks: creating value, tying transportation to land use, and exploring issues of equity and environmental justice. The following principles help to frame the discussion within the larger HUD-DOT-EPA Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities principles: We must use space to accommodate the most efficient transportation mode. More people can walk two miles than can drive two miles because of congestion and vehicle size constraints. This means bikes are competitive with cars for distances of up to six miles, and since 60 percent of trips are shorter than five miles, it is important from both an economic and environmental perspective that we shift our thinking from supporting an auto-centric region to planning for a more multimodal transportation network. We need to cultivate transit-dependent citizens. Citizens in the region need to think of car ownership as an option, not a necessity. When you have that option, you have a real choice of whether or not to use a car. But at the moment, it is unimaginable for most

Group then members reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of the Philadelphia region’s existing “hub and spoke” rail system. Strengths • Solid existing rail infrastructure. • Rail transit is provided to the older suburbs. • There are many opportunities for transit-oriented development. • This in turn increases opportunities for land conservation. • The existing transit system brings value in terms

0 2.5 5

20 Miles

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2008 PennPraxis/Planning Collective

BELOW: A map prepared for the charrette that shows regional highway and passenger rail networks.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

BELOW: A map prepared for the charrette that shows freight rail (solid black), passenger rail (solid green) and rail lines that are currently inactive (dashed black).

0 2.5 5

20 Miles

Passenger: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2008; Freight: Select Greater Philadelphia, 2008; Inactive: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 1996 PennPraxis/Planning Collective

of economic return on investment as well as quality-oflife improvements.

transportation. • Decision-making and funding allocation for

• Strong freight rail system, though not always straightforward and connected. Weaknesses • Lack of connection/integration between different transportation systems and modes. • The highway system provides better suburban connectivity than alternative transportation choices. • There are transit-oriented development opportunities that are not yet realized. • Much of the transit system is in a state of disrepair or delayed repair. • The “last mile,” or the gap between the existing regional rail stations and where people live and work, forces many to use cars instead of public

transportation is often limited by local land use decisions and regressive tax policies. • Transit use is generally not encouraged because of overall “fear of density” and public policies that focus on highway investments and not public transportation. Three priority areas were identified in the discussion: 1. Improved Transportation Creates Value In order for our transportation system to help unlock future economic growth, it must be integrated into a region-wide strategy. Today, we fund discrete projects on a political and geographic basis without respect to strengthening our existing economic centers. Creating a strategy that aligns transit and transportation investment with existing jobs and population centers will acknowledge that population and job density creates economic value for the region and should be identified as part of a transportation strategy for the region. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, the region’s municipal planning organization (MPO), currently includes a map of “centers” in its long-range plan, but targeting growth and development around these centers is part of only one possible growth scenario, and the overall plan does not endorse this particular recentralizing scenario. We must assess our current transit and transportation system to see how well it serves existing centers of population and employment density. How do we plan to benefit centers not currently served by our

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

transportation systems? For example, is it worth increasing transit access in

region. These stations will then become prime future suburban activity centers. This is akin to the CityRail

order to turn King of Prussia into a mixed-use center similar to the current plan for Tysonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Corner, Va., or should the region focus on adding employment to existing residential centers to create live-work environments that minimize the need for further transportation infrastructure? If we assume the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population will continue to grow, this group argued that we need a variation on an urban growth boundary that both stimulates growth and conserves land and natural resources.

model suggested by the Philadelphia 2040 PennPlanning studio in spring 2009, and based on the work of Richard Voith of Econsult. The group emphasized that no such strategic growth can occur when decisions about transportation network improvements are made according to regional politics or trend-based computer models. There should be a new system of prioritizing criteria, and all should be benchmarked and measured so planning organizations can evaluate performance. This would be a change in method from how DVRPC currently plans for the region, which raises the larger question of the resources and capacity for the metropolitan planning organization model both locally and nationally. Such

2. Connect Transportation and Land Use Decisions In order to effectively integrate transportation and land use, the region must plan collectively for a specific development pattern and scenario, given that the region has sprawled significantly without the guidance of a metropolitan regional plan. The group discussed the following regional development typologies: Current system: Strong center in Philadelphia with low-density development on the fringe. Corridor system: Similar to the Metro Rail in the metropolitan area of Washington, D.C., this system would plan for development along specific transportation corridors, with numerous transit nodes with increased density provisions along each corridor. Suburban activity center model: Expand at nodes where activity currently exists, such as King of Prussia, Pa., and Cherry Hill, N.J. Amalgam: Using the existing system, offer higher speed and higher frequency local service within the Philadelphia boundaries. Outside the city, offer express rail to locations in the Greater Philadelphia

BELOW: Participants Clint Randall of Planning Collective LLC and Elaine Elbich of PennDOT review Greater Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s highway and transit connectivity.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

BELOW: A sketch drawn by the Regional Transportation group during the charrette showing the basic outline of some of its proposals to raise density and improve transit choices.

benchmarks could include: • Do the investments support the region’s overall

3. Improve Transportation for Equity and Environmental Justice

land use concept? • Do the investments reduce the region’s carbon footprint? • Do the investments increase accessibility or provide connections that are needed but currently unavailable? • Are investments being made to provide access for those with the least access right now? • Are the investments in concert with community values? • Do the investments improve or maintain freight transportation?

In order to plan and implement transportation improvements that support equity and environmental justice, we must resolve the misconception in many parts of the region that density is a bad thing. The group concluded that when properly designed and implemented, density brings value and leverages existing assets, which can benefit residents of the region as a whole. For example, increased transit ridership in areas of high density alleviates congestion on area highways. When it comes to planning for density, the group emphasized the need to facilitate effective transitoriented development (TOD)—not just a series of high-rises built near train stations according to the cheapest land value. Instead, development should be planned in accordance with urban design guidelines to generate value through the creation of a sense of place. This must be TOD in both density and land use mix—a complete and integrated land use and transportation system and not simply a collection of disparate development nodes. Regional policy must be structured to integrate equity and environmental considerations. As noted earlier, it was the consensus of the group that the current MPO system is not designed to operate in this fashion, so this system must respond to this deficit if the region is to benefit from coordinated transportation and land use policies. Finally, look at service frequency and travel times for existing transit. The Philadelphia region has an extensive transit network relative to other parts of the country, and improving service could go a long way toward increasing ridership—generally a more cost-

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

ABOVE: This map is a digitized version of the Regional Transportation group’s vision of a regional urban growth boundary to concentrate growth in and around population and employment centers. This map also shows two spurs of a new “arc” rail system that would connect regional economic centers without requiring travel to 30th Street or Suburban stations in Philadelphia. This rail line resembles a portion of the R0 line as proposed by a PennPlanning studio in 2008.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

effective measure than constructing entirely new transit lines. There is a significant amount of transit

– This will likely require implementing funding strategies that are new for the region, such as user

infrastructure in the region that is currently underutilized.

fees on highways and adjusted fare prices depending on distance traveled. – While improving existing service, add new routes that fill the gaps in the network and transit hubs that target density. • Any additions to the regional network should build on existing infrastructure and align with existing centers of employment and population. • Look for opportunities to reuse existing facilities or reactivate inactive rail.

Proposals The Transportation group had a wide variety of proposals, from policy changes to adding rail lines and transit stops. They included: General priorities and areas of importance for future policy and planning include: • Establish a system for prioritizing transit improvements. Link transit investment to goals that support the future growth of the region, including reinforcing the notion of supporting existing economic centers. – Facilitate TODs through initiatives such as updated zoning and tax increment financing. – Restrict funding for transit and other public improvements to areas of high density. – Conduct public outreach and education about the relationship between density and economic value, how to deliver amenities and services, and the fact that functional transit service can offset negative impacts of increased density. • Do not construct any new highways—instead focus on new transit improvements and fixing existing highway infrastructure so it is stable. Expand transportation choices for residents, employees and visitors so as to overcome the obstacles inherent in our legacy “hub and spoke” transit system. Create cross-city and cross-region transit options that allow access to regional employment centers without a car. • Improve transit service.

New stops and systems include: • A new rail system that connects secondary regional centers via an arc or semicircle. This would include stops in Northeast Philadelphia, Willow Grove, Norristown and West Chester. – Extend the SEPTA R3 to West Chester. – Extend the SEPTA R8 to Newtown. – Extend the SEPTA Broad Street Line south to the Navy Yard and add a northeast spur along Roosevelt Boulevard. Note: There were differing opinions about the Navy Yard extension, which is referenced later in this section. – Extend PATCO into Gloucester County, N.J. Inside the SEPTA system: Do not burden buses and trolleys with the same responsibility that we give to subway and regional rail. Improve them to better serve residents by offering express buses, Bus Rapid Transit, and new routes that connect urban and suburban dwellers in meaningful ways instead of keeping old routes that are no longer useful.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

There are two systems that must be of high priority to the Philadelphia region, as each will likely bring

multimodal transportation access to an academic and employment hub, providing total activity that one

billions of federal improvement dollars to the region in the years ahead. • Interstate 95, which is being reconstructed from Bucks County south to the Delaware state border. • High-speed rail: Since the High-Speed Rail Act lists the Northeast Corridor as one of 11 areas to get structural improvements to allow for high-speed rail connections, the line will undoubtedly run through the region with a stop at 30th Street Station. • It is a rare opportunity to have such potentially transformative projects at one time, so a strategy must be established to ensure that the region maximizes the benefits from these transit and transportation investments.

cannot get anywhere else in the region.

The following three transportation improvement statements were identified as “game changers,” prioritizations that could significantly enhance the economic competitiveness of the region. • Higher quality transit connection to Philadelphia International Airport (numerous other charrette groups addressed this issue in greater detail). • Shift focus away from improving service for the Philadelphia Navy Yard. The group argued that development should progress before extending the Broad Street Line, which is estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, when that money could go toward small measures to connect existing centers with greater employment figures. • Turn North Broad Street from Center City to Temple University into Philly’s “Champs Élysées” for transit and pedestrians. This would offer complete

Responses to HUD-DOT-EPA Principles Since the group’s main charge was to reimagine the region’s transportation networks, it is clear that the ideas addressed the HUD-DOT-EPA principle for improving transportation choices. However, wellplanned and successful transportation access can be the key to unlocking economic prosperity, environmental health and affordable living, while strengthening existing communities. Conclusion Restructuring our regional transportation policy priorities to integrate land use, equity and environmental concerns is crucial to the future of Greater Philadelphia. Practitioners are beginning to make these connections at the local level, but this conversation must be elevated across the region if positive collaboration is going to occur. A recurring question is whether the current national model of allocating federal transportation funding and decisionmaking to regional metropolitan planning organizations (DVRPC here) is the appropriate model going forward. Whatever the method, it must be one that prioritizes existing areas of economic strength, regardless of county and municipal boundaries, to benefit the region as a whole.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

Regional Natural Systems Alex Krieger, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, team leader

BELOW: The Natural Systems group begins the day by discussing open space and natural features as assets that must be maximized.

Existing Conditions The Philadelphia region has an extensive open space system from the New Jersey Pinelands in Gloucester County to the 9,200-acre Fairmount Park system. However, like many metropolitan regions that have grown over the last 60 years, urban and suburban development has replaced undeveloped greenfields, increasingly taxing the natural systems and leaving many residents without easy access to open space while burdening stormwater management systems. In recent years, the definition of “open space” has evolved beyond passive areas into active working

landscapes that have environmental as well as economic benefits for the region. This ranges from the water health issues of stormwater management to the economic and public health benefits of trails and waterfront land, to new forms of “green” infrastructure that beautify while alleviating the strain that urban areas place on our natural systems. Greenworks Philadelphia begins to lay out a plan for the city to improve its environmental sustainability, and neighboring counties and townships are putting together similar plans as well. Charge A diverse region like Philadelphia’s possesses an array of natural systems, from creeks and conservancies to overgrown vacant row house lots, and there should be uses for each of them. The goal for this session was to: • Determine how the region should protect and strengthen existing natural systems, and identify areas of improvement where open space is currently lacking. • Identify pinch-points where natural systems meet urbanized areas, and strategies needed to resolve these tensions. • Determine whether it is better to maintain existing systems or create new ones; this answer could be different depending on the part of the region. • Devise a list of priority projects that meet the HUD-DOT-EPA Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities principles and that fit into the region’s future vision and identity. Suggested Questions to Answer • How should the region strengthen existing

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

natural systems, and what are the primary areas where it should improve?

Open Space • All counties except Delaware County have open

• Which elements of the HUD-DOT-EPA Principles will the new open space system prioritize? • Where are the pinch-points where natural systems come into serious conflict with urbanized areas on which we must concentrate? • Is it better to maintain existing open spaces or to create new ones? • The list of priority open space projects for the region is …

space programs. • Plenty of vacant land, especially within the City of Philadelphia—potential for greenway development. • There is a history of and public support for protection of natural resources and historic places/ landscapes. • There are state and national parks in the region. • There is ongoing work in the region to reclaim land for open space, and public support for connecting the region with a network of trails, parks and open space.

Discussion The Natural Systems group began its overview of the region by looking at the system of rivers, tributaries and open spaces in the region, the urbanized area created on or around these systems, and the overlap between the two. This comparison showed both the promise and difficulties in trying to resolve a sprawling urbanized area with an array of natural features that are fast being depleted. The group identified the following strengths and weaknesses in the region’s water and open space systems: Strengths Water • Protected creeks within city borders. • Connectivity of parks to neighborhoods (in many areas). • Rivers as amenities—to quality of life, housing, recreation. • Improved water quality on the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers over last 20 years. • Philadelphia Water Department’s innovative responses/approaches to stormwater management.

Weaknesses Water • Water quality issues persist in rivers and creeks. • Lack of protection upstream—13 treatment plants on the Wissahickon Creek outside Philadelphia city limits. • Stormwater management remains a problem; taxing our combined sewer and storm overflow system. • Flooding in low-lying development zones. Open Space • General passivity and underuse of open space in region. • Disconnection of park spaces within city and region. • No regional forum for getting green infrastructure built and connected. • Inequity of green resource distribution and recreation amenities (such as recreation centers). • No clear articulation of why the region should protect open space. • Lack of funding for parks.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

• Fate of parks and open space tied to larger fiscal conditions. The group centered its work on the following concepts: • Look at the region’s natural systems in terms of its watersheds (i.e., major rivers, creeks). Protect the headwaters because everything flows down to Philadelphia and its adjacent suburbs. • There are notable gaps in the region’s natural systems that should be priority projects going forward: Park systems – Completion of linear park at Frankford Creek in Philadelphia. – FDR Park needs better connections to South Philadelphia neighborhoods and the Navy Yard.

BELOW: A map prepared for the charrette that shows the 432,480 acres of protected open space in the region, 15.7% of the total land area.

0 2.5 5

20 Miles

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Open Space Inventory PennPraxis/Planning Collective

Water systems – The region needs a water taxi system pending further waterfront development; a possible connection from Center City to the airport could exist here. – Waterfront trail, water recreation and accessibility. Pedestrian connectivity gaps – University City and Center City. – South Street, from the Schuylkill River to Front Street. • Many natural features in the region are both assets as well as weaknesses, such as vacant land and stormwater management (the region generally manages both of these poorly, but there is a long history of members of the public launching grassroots efforts and Philadelphia deploying innovative efforts to strengthen both). • There are numerous “pinch-points” where natural systems come into conflict with urbanized areas. Some of the most notable are: – Some of our most desirable communities in terms of livability are within the 100-year or 500-year floodplain. Such natural constraints can create stormwater management challenges as well as the risk of damage caused by storms as dense development occurs in these areas. Consideration for such environmental issues is necessary on a regional scale going forward. – Projects that come with significant potential benefits, such as greening transportation infrastructure, also come with significant potential challenges. – The struggle between general practices in road engineering and the use of impervious pavers versus the new way of thinking about “green streets”

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

that manage stormwater and reduce flooding of the combined sewer overflow (CSO) system.

utilitarian and recreation use. – Greening initiatives that strategically link

– The impact traditional water infrastructure (i.e., CSOs) has on natural resources is significant. • An inherent conflict exists in “local” sustainability standards like LEED, which focus on detailed elements of construction: It is still possible to build an environmentally friendly building in a location that is environmentally unfriendly in terms of its placement in larger “global” natural systems. The criteria for sustainable development should include provisions for a development’s context and the larger systems that support it.

parks and trails to existing assets in communities such as employment centers. – Mapping economic change in the region to identify greening opportunities. – Encouraging urban agriculture. – Prioritizing existing transportation corridors for multiple greening projects on a regional scale (such as SEPTA and Amtrak right-of-way, much of which aligns with existing natural features). – Bundling necessary public investments (i.e., water, sewers and transportation) with green space and other work to protect natural resources. – Prioritizing areas already connected to the region’s core via transit and roadway.

Proposals • When devising a plan to strengthen the region’s natural features, start with rivers and tributaries, highlands and major headwaters. Thinking of the region as a set of watersheds would encourage counties to think of how they can collaborate with one another. • Establish a plan for the region’s natural systems, which should include supporting existing agriculture, greening communities through increasing tree canopy, and launching a new regional institution charged with supporting a vital regional network of open spaces. Important components for such a plan include: – DVRPC’s open space plan (with more detailed guidelines in specific areas). – The watershed plans (i.e., Delaware Direct) and long-term plan for the CSO system. – Preserve the highlands for open space and water quality. – Preservation of the Pinelands in New Jersey for open space and water quality. – Completion of the regional trail system for

BELOW: The Schuylkill River at sunset, captured during a boat ride as part of the charrette. Greater Philadelphia’s rivers and tributaries served as the basis for the Natural Systems group’s regional open space vision.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

BELOW: A sketch drawn by Mami Hara of WRT and David Schaaf of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission outlining the region’s riparian corridors and headwaters.

– Encouraging public-private partnerships that include both private development and open space

finance DOG projects. – This could be a small dedication of sales tax

investment. • Create new open space that is equitably accessible with a focus on where is it needed in the region. • Create the Department of Green (DOG), a regional natural lands governance and funding organization. Creating a cooperative partnership to advance a regional open space agenda would be beneficial to the area. – DOG would be a tristate entity created by the legislatures of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. – DOG would have an “opt-in” structure in which any municipalities that are “members” would voluntarily choose to assume a small incremental tax (.25 percent, for example), which would be used to

revenue (the group imagined if the City of Philadelphia kept its current increase in sales tax for this purpose), as well as an “impervious surface fee” for restoring watershed function. – DOG functions could include: – Setting “green” standards for municipalities to meet that would determine whether DOG funds projects in and provide services for those municipalities. – DOG would set standards for trails (rightsof-way, signage, connections, etc.) as well as policies such as stormwater management and watershed retrofitting. – DOG could also have fee authority and penalty association if a municipality does not meet the standards. – Similar bistate agencies exist in St. Louis as well as other metropolitan regions. • Create a policy research and development institute that seeks innovative solutions to persistent problems. – For example, entities would trade off development rights in upper headwater areas for increased density in lower watershed areas (a transfer of development rights, of sorts). – The institute would develop a regional growth management strategy that’s enforceable. – The institute would develop a scorecard for each municipality for open space to both deliver results and compel local governments to act. – The institute could also determine carbon offsets at a regional scale. • Establish acceptable minimum maintenance

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

URBANIZED AREA IDEALIZED RIPARIAN CORRIDORS HEADWATER AREAS OF CONFLICT FALL LINE

ABOVE: This map is a digitized version of the Regional Natural Systems groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision of a natural features and open space network that is guided by the flow and location of the rivers and tributaries, highlands and major headwaters. The map also shows how the region has developed so far (in purple) and the areas of conflict that exist between our current development pattern and our natural systems goals. Other proposals made by the group, such as establishing a Department 3 of Green, thismi by formalizing natural systems as something that must be coordinated and funded regionally, similar to transportation systems. 6 would help 12address 18

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

BELOW: A diagram of the “River Ring” initiative of the Great Rivers Greenway District, a regional initiative similar to the proposed Department of Green, in which representatives from three counties collaborate on open space projects.

standards for everything from a ball field to the Wissahickon Creek. In general, the group said it was

Responses to HUD-DOT-EPA Principles By reimagining the region’s natural systems

important to be cognizant of what spaces municipalities and counties can and cannot maintain. – Begin by identifying possible partners for maintenance initiatives through the land’s users and uses. This would be a system to create new forms of land stewardship. – Do not build a new green space if there is no maintenance plan or funding in place. . – Establish a regional standard for publicly accessible open space per capita (which includes trails).

networks, the group brainstormed ideas that address a number of the HUD-DOT-EPA Principles, even though the connections are not as directly visible as in the Regional Transportation group. The ideas provide more transportation choices (through enhanced trail and water taxi networks), coordinate policies (mandates for sustainability and energy efficiency at both the state and federal levels), support existing communities (by making interventions that improve residents’ physical health and quality of life), enhance economic competitiveness (the economic benefits of trails, open spaces and waterfront property are well-documented), and value communities and neighborhoods (by supporting public spaces across the region). Wellplanned and successful natural feature improvements can be essential to promoting economic prosperity and public health, and strengthening existing communities. Conclusion This group’s findings highlight the ongoing struggle to maintain and strengthen open space and natural systems networks in a region that is constantly growing and developing. Similar to transportation networks, natural features do not adhere to political boundaries, and decisions that affect their health and maintenance can often hinge on a regional agenda. The time has come for Greater Philadelphia to think comprehensively about the importance of its natural systems network and the network’s impact on stormwater management, water quality, recreation, community building and public health.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

Using the watersheds and major tributaries as the basis for creating a regional plan is an important concept that should be developed further. Moreover, the establishment of a regional natural systems governance, policymaking and oversight organization (such as the Department of Green that the group proposed) along with a complementary research and policy institute could bind municipalities across the region together as they leverage interlocking benefits from a progressive natural systems policy. A focus on how to incorporate vacant land in a regional natural systems strategy could be the first project undertaken on a regional scale by the new Department of Green.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

Philadelphia International Airport Marilyn Jordan Taylor, PennDesign, and Derek Moore, Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP, team leaders Existing Conditions Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), owned and operated by the City of Philadelphia, has seen dramatic increases in activity in recent years despite its physical constraints. In 2007, PHL handled approximately 499,683 aircraft operations and 32 million passengers—it was the 10th busiest airport in the U.S. in terms of operations, yet it has the smallest land area of any major U.S. international airport. The Federal Aviation Administration has identified PHL as contributing to delays throughout the National Airspace System due to insufficient primary runway

BELOW: This diagram of passenger boardings shows the importance of Philadelphia International Airport as an air travel hub in the Northeast U.S.

Newark 18,163,652

LaGuardia 12,529,890 JFK 23,401,351

Philadelphia 15,656,653 BWI 10,487,789

500,000 1,000,000 5,000,000

Dulles 11,789,441 0

7.5

40 Miles

Federal Aviation Administration, 2008 PennPraxis/Planning Collective

Reagan 9,038,174

10,000,000

separation and secondary runway length. The airport is working on an expansion plan to build an additional runway to accommodate increased traffic and reduce delays. The plan has become controversial, as Delaware County and Tinicum Township officials sued Philadelphia in May 2009 over its plans to acquire land in Tinicum Township without permission. The lawsuit says the city believes it can acquire land without permission, though others say that Philadelphia is required by state law to negotiate with its neighbors over airport expansion plans. Charge Philadelphia International Airport is the region’s gateway to the world, yet its potential to enhance our regional economic geography is not fully realized. The goal of this session was to: • Establish a mission statement for how PHL can best serve the Philadelphia region. • Devise increased transportation connections from the airport to our region’s economic centers (Wilmington, Trenton, University City, Center City, Temple, the Route 202 life science corridor, etc.). • Imagine a transit system in which the airport is a central hub, linking people to our regional assets in a more efficient fashion than it currently does. • Establish target drive-times and transit speed and frequency, and determine how best to meet these goals. • Discuss the different approaches to airport growth around the world (i.e., planning for highdensity commercial and residential development around the airport, creating “mini-cities” of sorts) and determine if such a concept fits with Philadelphia’s

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

regional development goals and the HUD-DOT-EPA Principles to establish sustainable communities.

• The airport already has assets that distinguish it from comparable airports around the country. These

Suggested Questions to Answer • What is the mission statement for how PHL can best serve the Philadelphia region going forward? • Which elements of the HUD-DOT-EPA Principles should the airport prioritize? • What does the future transit system for the airport look like? How does it connect to our regional economic centers? • What are the target drive-times and transit speed and frequency, and how can we meet these goals? • What is the best approach to development surrounding the airport?

assets include: – It is approximately six miles from Center City—Philadelphia’s thriving downtown. – It is already connected by rail—the SEPTA R1 line, which connects Philadelphians to the airport via a 22-minute train ride from Center City every 30 minutes. • Though some connections already exist, we must increase access opportunities to and from the airport. We are not currently maximizing possible connections. There are two components here: – Increasing access to the airport itself for employees and passengers. – There is currently a 93 percent/7 percent BORO

DARBY TWP

Proposed Building

Existing Building

State Boundary

LIN

OL LE

Navigational Aids

Municipal Boundaries

G H

A TR

CEP Project Area

Open Water RIDLEY TWP Vegetated Areas

SEPT

MACD

AD E

SIX

COLWYN BORO

SHARON HILL BORO

onn ecti on

PASSY UNK AV

DARBY TWP

AV ON GT

SIN

HO O

HOO K RD

S AV

Roads

H EIG

PROSPECT Automated People Mover PARK BORO Proposed Rail

PR IMO

Parking Lot

U FO TH S YF

Sc hu y lkill R ive

HT EIG

River Fill

Pro pos ed Fre ight Rail C

GLENOLDEN BORO

SIN

EMAS Bed

FOLCROFT BORO

BARTRAM AV BA

RD R CO

Ground

TINICUM TWP

420

LL EC

R eci

Terminal

n Transportation

Cargo Facilities

ARFF Facility

Cargo Facilities

Existing Deicing Facility

Deicing Facility

Corporate Hangars Army Corp. of Engineers Fort Mifflin

27 C

9 R

27 L

Airpor t Servic e Rd

PEN NSY LVAN IA DEL AWA RE

Fort Mifflin Rd

SEPTA

9 L

Supplemental ARFF Facility

USPS

USACE Ft. Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility Proposed Cell D

Relocated UPS Facility

Parking Garage Terminal

Maintenance Hangar

291

Equipment Storage

Facility

27 R

291

o lat i rcu

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

Maintenance Buildings DOA Southeast Water Warehouse Pollution Control Plant Commuter Terminal

ER AV

I- 9

John Heinz Wildlife Refuge

95 TR COL LEC

Employee Parking Garage

Darby C reek

I-95 COLLE CTOR

NORWOOD BORO

R OU

RIDLEY PARK BORO

Source: \\mawatr\ev\08495\GIS\apps\A PR-MXD\DEIS \E xecutive_Summary\DE IS _E S_FigS-3_AlternativeA.mxd

Alternative A Runways Taxiways and Apron

MAK I95/WANA

Runway Safety Area (RSA)

IS LA ND AV

RUTLEDGE BORO

BELOW: The runway expansion plan discussed during the charrette, as shown in PHL’s Environmental Impact Statement.

9 C

Discussion • The group supported the airport’s current expansion plan. – The plan, which includes runway extensions and a new runway with slight encroachment into the Delaware River, is sorely needed to increase throughput and capacity, and so more of the fleet mix can be handled. – Delays in flight service cost airlines time and money as well as waste of fuel (circling and taxiing both burn fuel needlessly) and productivity. – Further, the FAA predicts an increase of 100 percent in commercial air traffic in the next 20 years. – When implemented, the expansion will use all existing land in the airport’s boundaries and extend airport development to adjacent areas. This precludes an “aerotropolis” (an aviation-oriented business cluster) for any uses that are not aeronautical.

ARFF Training Facility

Sunoco Pier

Del

iv re R awa

NATIONA PARK BOR

Fuel Farm

Figure S-3 0

2,500

5,000

7,500

Alternative A

Feet

Source: VHB, Edwards and Kelcey, CRJ &

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

BELOW: A sketch drawn by the Airport group outlining sites for regular bus service to the airport.

modal split between car (low-occupancy vehicle) and transit access to the airport, one of the smallest

to the airport from employment centers around the region (King of Prussia, Cherry Hill, Media, etc.). The

among domestic hub airports. – Increasing access to Center City and the region’s other centers for incoming travelers or those with long layovers. • Though the group’s main charge was connectivity, addressing this issue has numerous additional benefits: increasing economic competitiveness (for nearby development as well as the region as a whole), social benefits (by creating jobs and enhancing employee access), reducing the amount of low occupancy car trips, etc.

size of the vehicle would vary depending on demand. Scheduled bus services from a dedicated facility would collect passengers from the region and provide regular, reliable airport service. – Bus facilities could do “double-duty,” i.e. be located at existing SEPTA, PATCO or New Jersey Transit stations. – A more detailed study should be conducted to determine the best applications for such a service. – As a corollary to this idea, the group discussed the possibility of implementing HOV lanes on nearby expressways and interstates for employee van pools and express shuttle service. – The group also suggested adding a stop along the Amtrak Northeast Corridor line as close to the airport as currently possible, where a visible and branded “people-mover” would be constructed to transport passengers from the Amtrak line to the airport. However, after lengthy consideration, the group concluded that this intervention was too expensive, and efforts should be focused on enhancing the connection at 30th Street Station instead. • City Access: Numerous transit interventions were proposed (with no increase to roadway capacity). They include: – Make 30th Street Station the primary intermodal connection to the airport by enhancing accessibility at the station between lines like Amtrak, SEPTA Regional Rail, SEPTA’s subway lines and New Jersey Transit. The visibility and ease of the 30th Street connection must be improved through such measures as upgraded equipment and wayfinding,

Proposals • Regional Access: launch a series of scheduled higher-occupancy “rubber tire” collector points going

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

PRINCETON DOYLESTOWN

PHL PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 30TH ST STATION

TRENTON

AMTRAK-SEPTA-NJ TRANSIT SCHEDULED BUS SERVICE FERRY SERVICE

NORRISTOWN KING OF PRUSSIA

WILLOW GROVE / ABINGTON CONSHOHOCKEN

PASSENGER RAIL FREIGHT RAIL

WEST CHESTER

INACTIVE RAIL

CAMDEN CHERRY HILL

CHESTER

WILMINGTON

ABOVE: This map is a digitized version of the Airport group’s vision of improved access from regional centers across Greater Philadelphia to Philadelphia International Airport via scheduled, high-occupancy bus “rubber tire” connections. This group also noted the importance of enhancing the connection at 30th Street Station, making it a “one-ticket ride” with increased visibility and accessibility.

18mi

Rail lines: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2008

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

RIGHT: A sketch drawn by Scott Page of Interface Studio that identifies local economic centers and nearby underutilized parcels that could, together, become Philadelphia’s version of an “aerotropolis.”

better signalization and track capacity, and the ability to run an R1 express that has a branded identity as

become a “one-ticket ride:” a passenger could buy a ticket to the airport on a different transit line and

the Airport Connector. The transit connection must be just as convenient (if not more so) than any other travel mode to the airport. The group said that the ideal rail frequency between Amtrak’s 30th Street Station and PHL was every 15 to 20 minutes. – There are operational issues associated with increased frequency and running an express line (e.g., costly track upgrades), but the group concluded that it was an important enough idea that it must be explored. Installing more visible time indicators showing how much time is remaining until the next train departs would be helpful as well. – This would not achieve the desired goal of a “one-seat ride” to the airport for everyone, but it could

make a seamless transfer at 30th Street Station. – If another track can be acquired after the high-speed rail corridor is determined, reliable local and express service could be coordinated. – Extending PATCO service to 30th Street, which would help increase airport access for New Jersey residents, would dovetail with this effort. – Extend the Broad Street Line (BSL) from its terminus at Pattison Avenue south to the Navy Yard. – Add a light rail connection from the BSL at Oregon Avenue that connects diagonally to the airport via Moyamensing and Penrose Avenues and the Platt Bridge. – The light rail could also extend east of Broad along Oregon Avenue, connecting to a future riverfront line along the Delaware. – These two additions could take business to the Navy Yard and Center City, and take employees to the airport. Expansion would connect thousands of low-skilled jobs to the airport. • Other Access: The group also explored ferryboat connections between the airport and various centers on the Philadelphia and New Jersey sides of the Delaware River, which could help spur multimodal, transit-oriented riverfront development. • Airport-Related Development: For nonaeronautical uses, establish a coordinated development approach that uses the “aerotropolis” idea to populate targeted development sites such as the Navy Yard and fallow industrial land along the Lower Schuylkill to bridge the connections between the airport and economic centers such as University

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY CITY

INDUSTRIAL SITE

CENTER CITY

DUPONT CRESCENT GAS WORKS

SCRAP YARDS AUTOMALL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

QUARTERMASTER SITE

FOOD DISTRIBUTION CENTER EASTWICK

NEIGHBORHOODS AND JOB CENTERS

NAVY YARD

RAIL TRANSPORT existing

proposed

PROPOSED EXPRESS SERVICE WATER TAXI

AIRPORT CARGO CITY

ABOVE: This map is a digitized of the Airport 5000 10000 version20000 25000ftgroup’s vision of enhancing transportation connections to the airport via an express SEPTA R1 service, a local rail extension from Oregon Avenue in South Philadelphia, and water taxis from various nodes on both sides of the Delaware River. The map also identifies vacant or underutilized sites in Grays Ferry and Southwest Philadelphia that could accommodate airport-related development, though the group emphasized the importance of improving the connections to existing job centers that make Philadelphia an “aerotropolis” in itself.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

BELOW: The Airport group begins to brainstorm how to better connect regional population and employment centers to Philadelphia International Airport.

City and Center City. This is similar to the “aerotropolis” concept but, importantly, it

include the DuPont Crescent, the Gas Works site, the auto mall corridor (Essington Avenue from about 63rd

acknowledges the proximity of the Navy Yard and Center City as well as potential development sites along the Schuylkill River corridor, providing linkages in the form of transit and development so that development does not occur in an uncoordinated fashion. – This reasserts the conclusion that Philadelphia itself (specifically Center City) is the “aerotropolis,” so separate business-cluster development is not required. – This focused approach will help justify increased transportation linkages to areas like the Navy Yard, University City and Center City. – Potential Lower Schuylkill development sites

to 70th streets) and selected portions of the Eastwick neighborhood. • Create an Airport Experience Through Design: The group concluded that the corridor between the airport and Center City Philadelphia is not a successful gateway, so this “front-door experience” must be improved through such suggested measures as greening the rail corridor, installing public art along the rail corridor and at the airport entrance, or enhancing the industrial vista of crossing the bridge into the city as part of Philadelphia’s image. – The issue of how terminal buildings can become gateways was raised, but not discussed in detail. Responses to HUD-DOT-EPA Principles Provide more transportation choices. The group discussed strategies for increasing transportation choices across the city and region in depth. Concepts discussed included the “one-ticket ride” that enables seamless access to the airport via any existing rail line (through an enhanced connection at 30th Street Station) and increased bus connections across the region. The next step would be for the airport to analyze the market for ground transportation, and look toward making the new Ground Transportation Center proposed in the current Airport Expansion Plan an enhanced focal point of the airport experience. Promote equitable, affordable housing. While not directly providing affordable housing, the growth of the airport and enhanced transit connections will enable the growth of decent low-skilled jobs,

Charrette Discoveries: Day 1

which will allow workers to afford housing closer to Center City and the airport. The proposals also provide

Crossing the Platt Bridge simultaneously provides views of the downtown skyline and the Sunoco tank

more and better access to the airport for employees from city neighborhoods. Enhance economic competitiveness. Improving the airport and its connections is of great economic importance in the near term for the Philadelphia region to connect businesses, origin and destination passengers, employees and residents. Support existing communities. Enhancing transportation connections can support existing communities in close proximity to the airport, such as Eastwick. Further, the focused plan to channel development to formerly industrial areas between the airport and Center City will help keep nonresidential development out of existing residential neighborhoods. Also, the improved transportation connections will decrease overall cost of living for nearby residents, as cost of transit will become cheaper. Coordinate policies and leverage investment. The group’s proposals involve close coordination between airport and railroads, and between transit agencies. Federal initiatives such as the High-Speed Rail Act could encourage interagency partnerships (i.e. SEPTA-Amtrak) with the incentive of federal money and increased ridership. The group’s proposals also support the airport as an environmental steward by requiring that new airport buildings meet LEED criteria, and creating new green buffers that leverage the presence of the Heinz Wildlife Refuge. Value communities and neighborhoods—enhance unique characteristics. The group’s ideas regarding improving the image and vistas as people enter the city via the airport focus on enhancing Philadelphia’s unique characteristics.

farm area. A marketing and rebranding effort could be very valuable here. Conclusion This was a rich first day of brainstorming for the Airport group, which finalized many of its design ideas the following day. Improving transportation choices, enhancing economic competitiveness and supporting existing communities remained the focus of the group’s work going forward. The Ground Transportation Center proposed as part of the Airport Expansion Plan is a very important piece of these efforts. Ease of rail access was a specific goal for the Airport group that was not formalized until the following day’s session.

BELOW: The Airport group listens to Roger Moog of DVRPC give an overview of the runway expansion plan.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

Day 2: Testing regional systems in Philadelphia Citywide Systems: Transportation and Natural Systems Alex Krieger, Harvard Graduate School of Design, and Trent Lethco, Arup, Inc., team leaders

BELOW: The Citywide Systems group begins the morning with a discussion of the existing infrastructure in Philadelphia.

Existing Conditions Citywide transportation and open space systems are existing economic development assets, but also leave much room for improvement. Most Philadelphians rely on their cars because frequent public transit is limited to central areas of the city, and buses are often slow and unreliable. Meanwhile, rail infrastructure remains underutilized and could connect many of

Philadelphia’s struggling neighborhoods. Open space is concentrated in some areas of the city, leaving many neighborhoods without sufficient space for recreation. Charge The goal for today’s session was to: • Apply the regional principles on a city scale, with Philadelphia as a case study area. • Identify job centers, population centers and transit nodes, and where they overlap in the city. • Identify gaps and decide either to devise a system to fill these gaps, or to prioritize funds on strengthening existing infrastructure to improve current levels of service. • When looking at public transportation, pay special attention to connectivity between rail lines as well as across systems (PATCO, New Jersey Transit, etc.). • Identify overlap of neighborhoods underserved by open space and those struggling with environmental impacts: basements flooding, drainage overflows, etc. • Determine the best strategy to improve the overall system while maximizing benefit for all residents. • Think about how Philadelphia is the transit and open space fulcrum for the region. What do we need to do to strengthen these relationships to solidify the future economic, social and ecological health of the city and region? Suggested Questions to Answer • What areas need improved transit infrastructure the most? Is it more important to devise a system that fills in gaps or to strengthen existing infrastructure to

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

improve current levels of service? • How can transit agencies in the region become

transportation and ecological systems as base standards that target projects must meet:

more integrated, thereby improving connectivity across the 10 counties? • What are the top design intervention priorities to improve the open space system? • What are the top design intervention priorities to minimize environmental impacts on Philadelphia’s residents?

• Build upon existing transit and natural systems assets and proximity to those assets • Projects/sites that incorporate all performance elements • Leverage existing development/align with market • Increase access and choices • Enhance ecological function • Increase equity

Discussion The citywide systems group conducted a multistep process to arrive at a series of design priorities and investment strategies for the City of Philadelphia. First, thinking of both transportation and ecological systems as one collective “circulation system,” the group discussed the current state of this system and listed the following strengths and weaknesses: • General unreliability of service and connections • Existing river trails, but need for trail connections • No great trails inland, away from Schuylkill River • Safe, frequent trail access regionally • Problem with the “last mile” connection from transit stations • Many potential small fixes to issues that impede connectivity (e.g., bike racks) • Problems with bus stacking • Poor attitude toward bikers and pedestrians • Increase in number of clean buses, but need for more

The group also discussed the following site selection criteria, which derived from the HUD-DOT-EPA Principles of supporting existing communities and ideas of building from economic strength conceived on the first day of the workshop:

The group then listed the following series of goals/ metrics of how to build the performance of

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Open Space Inventory PennPraxis/Planning Collective

BELOW: A map of existing protected open space in Philadelphia, including the Fairmount Park system as well as small neighborhood parks.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

• Access and mobility – This could be defined as proximity to a transit station, or placement along a transit corridor or future transit line. • Sites with multimodal transportation access • Roadways with excess capacity/right-of-way that could be used for other transportation modes. • Connections to ecological systems • Ability to connect areas together and have regional importance beyond political boundaries • Previously developed areas • Proximity to existing open space and parkland • Pedestrian-oriented street character/walkability

BELOW: The “gap analysis” drafted by the group, which offers a potential framework for future investment decisions.

Transit

From here, the group engaged in a “gap analysis,” looking at the existing structure of Philadelphia’s

Trails

Parks

Ped

Water

Roads

Central Delaware (lacking transit line)

Delaware River/ East Coast Greenway

Frankford Creek

Linking Water taxi Center City system and University City

Delaware Avenue extended north and south, and connections to neighborhoods

Northeast Phila (lacks dedicated transit along Roosevelt Blvd)

Complete Schuylkill River trail

FDR Park

South Street corridor: Front Street to the Schuylkill

I-95 crossings

Fairmount Park (poor transit access)

Frankford Creek (across entire city)

Inner-city rail stations (shut down over the years)

City-wide —bike network —complete streets

Navy Yard extension of Broad Street Line Address overcrowding

Public access

Recreation access

transportation and ecological systems and identifying missing links, building off the approach of both the Transportation and Natural Systems groups from the first day of the workshop to focus investments around linking existing assets together. Note that the lists below are not comprehensive, but offer a methodology for analyzing gaps in the current systems and a framework for future investment decisions. Proposals Part I: Improving the Transportation System In addition to suggesting priority projects, the group developed general ideas important to future regional growth: • Identify tools for directing growth/development. – Land assembly for TOD projects – Support for strategic investments in low- to moderate-income neighborhoods, beyond housing • Identify strategic gaps/overcome boundaries. – Underutilization of assets due to lack of access to transportation options • TOD—conceptualize as creating options. – Not just in areas where the market readily indicates Question: What does Philadelphia need to do? Answer: Create value centers and corridors • “Triple-bottom line”: Build upon existing economic assets, mitigate environmental impacts, and increase equity/access to those not currently served by existing systems • TOD • Corridors – Improve existing networks, but fill gaps where

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

most benefit is created Based on the site selection criteria in the section above, the group identified a series of “value” or “triple-bottom line” centers and corridors: places where investments should be directed in order to derive maximum economic, ecological and equity benefits for the city and region. The map included in this section represents a first attempt at this holistic analysis to distinguish these sites from other sites that the city is focusing on, as well as sites that may be viable according only to traditional transit ridership or cost-per-mile models. These centers and corridors would add significant value to Philadelphia’s transportation connectivity and overall quality of life for the region if given the proper attention, planning and investment. They include: Centers • Frankford Transportation Center – Existing investment as transit hub – Reasonable market without much transit access – Supporting street network—high accessibility – Hub for Northeast Philadelphia • Wissahickon Transfer Center – Connection between regional rail and bus – Connection to Schuylkill River and bike trail – High level of nearby development opportunity – Potential linkage of neighborhoods • North Broad Street Amtrak Station – Regional connection – Available land for development – Potential pedestrian access – Significant visual gateway – Potential connection to Lehigh Viaduct (park

opportunity) • Wayne Junction

– Multimodal access – Convenient urban/suburban access – Potential use of underutilized land and buildings – Proximity to park land – Existing investment agreements – Already an interagency focus area for City of Philadelphia • Centennial District – Connects neighbors to park and city to park – Leverage public investment in area – Tourism/regional destination (Mann Center for the Performing Arts, Please Touch Museum, Fairmount Park)

BELOW: This map, which shows areas of population and employment density in Philadelphia, helped the group identify its priority centers and corridors.

N.E. Philadelphia Airport Chestnut Hill Oxford Circle/ Roosevelt Mall Olney/ Germantown Einstein Hospital Manayunk Temple Medicine

East Falls City Line Avenue Temple University

University City

52nd St. Corridor

0 0.5 1

4 Miles

U.S. Census, 2000; Wharton Business Analyst, 2008 PennPraxis/Planning Collective

Philadelphia International Airport

Center City

Sports Complex Navy Yard

Kensington/ Port Richmond

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

BELOW: A sketch by the Citywide Systems group showing the “gaps” identified in various Philadelphia transportation systems.

– Architectural/historical significance (Memorial Hall) – Neighborhood benefit – Transit connections: R5, R6, 52nd Street, Philadelphia Zoo, Ben Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia Museum of Art – Already an interagency focus area for City of Philadelphia • Navy Yard

Corridors • Delaware Avenue—Central Delaware Riverfront Extending street grid to the river – Girard Avenue trolley as east-west citywide connection, link to proposed PATCO light rail line along the river

– Penn Treaty Park: existing open space – Lehigh Avenue viaduct and East Coast Greenway: future open space and trails • North Broad Street from Center City to Temple Hospital – Relatively inactive corridor between two economic nodes (Center City and Temple) – Existing transit (Broad Street Line) – Opportunity to leverage current investment: Temple University activity and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus dollars to revitalize Spring Garden and Girard stops on the Broad Street Line – Proximity to employment centers – Potential use of underused land and buildings – Historic assets – Reading Viaduct and green boulevard opportunity along Broad Street – Center City market pressure – Already a priority area for City of Philadelphia through transit-oriented development studies • Roosevelt Boulevard – Leverage proposed investment – Existing right-of-way availability for transit – Need for central focus, increased non-auto access and connections – Consider transit proposal for Roosevelt Boulevard to alleviate traffic on I-95 • South Broad Street from City Hall to Sports Complex The group then created a matrix to test the above centers and corridors against the metrics for investment they established earlier in the day. From this analysis of the different areas, three main priority

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

NEW TRANSIT TRAIL + BIKE + GREEN STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONECTIONS NEW+RE-OPENED STATIONS

NORTH BROAD

center city to temple university

CENTENNIAL DISTRICT

DELAWARE WATERFRONT

1 3

WATER TAXI

18mi

ABOVE: This map is a digitized version of the Citywide Systems group’s “gap analysis,” which identified priority areas for enhancements to transit systems, trails, green streets and pedestrian connections. It marks potential new stations as well as three areas of the city that the group thought could unlock major development potential if given targeted investment: North Broad Street, the Centennial District and the Central Delaware Waterfront.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

RIGHT: The Citywide Systems group begins to identify its high-priority transportation investments.

projects were identified:

Temple Regional Rail station at 10th and Berks streets.

• Project No. 1: North Broad Street Corridor, from Center City to Temple University or Temple University Hospital – Relatively inactive corridor between two economic nodes (Center City and Temple) – Transit infrastructure exists already – ARRA stimulus dollars already improving Broad Street Line stations along North Broad – Streetscape activity from transportation office – Proximity to employment centers – Center City and Temple University are the closest ones, but Broad Street can also be a link for others such as Willow Grove and the Navy Yard – Create a transit-oriented development at the

– Vision of a green boulevard/grand boulevard (“Champs Élysées”) – Bike access through Center City – Include Reading Viaduct (park opportunity) – Development pressure from both Temple and Center City can lead to synergies • Project No. 2: Delaware Avenue—Central Delaware Riverfront – Leverage condo development activity near and along the riverfront – Connect Center City residents and visitors to recreation along the river – Catalyze Penn Treaty Park – Help extend and expedite the East Coast Greenway project – Leverage future transportation investments, including the rebuilding of I-95, and PATCO’s proposal for a light rail extension along the riverfront • Project No. 3: Centennial District—Fairmount Park – Great open space and tourism resources, but minimal transit access – Inaccessible for most tourists and Center City residents – Extend 52nd Street connector through Fairmount Park, connect with Philadelphia Zoo, museum, under the Art Museum and out Callowhill Street to the Convention Center – Boost tourism – Increase connectivity and value to historically

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

significant properties Despite the huge potential upside of creating such value centers, the group acknowledged that such investments were “heavy lifts” because they required new transit infrastructure or significant improvements of distressed communities. For this reason, the group concluded that it is important to strengthen existing infrastructure first before filling in the gaps. However, simply adopting a new methodology that focuses planning around such “value centers” will help guide the strategies for where to improve service and eventually fill in the system gaps. Part II: Improving the Ecological System The group also discussed ideas for improvements to Philadelphia’s open space system, with citywide as well as site-specific interventions:

• Citywide – Green streets – Green schools – Need green space: potential for consolidation or joint use of fields? – East Coast Greenway – Increased tree cover – Reuse vacant land in neighborhoods – Riparian corridors – Rails to trails – Clean/green rail corridors – Complete Schuylkill trail • Site-Specific – Frankford Creek: complete linear park across the city – FDR Park: connect better to the city-at-large

– Conrail elevated rail viaduct at Lehigh Avenue and Delaware River – Connect University City with Fairmount Park – Fairmount Park: open up areas reserved for private use activities to the public • Trails – Schuylkill River Trail – Extend south of Locust Street – Complete East Coast Greenway – Need for “complete streets” network – Delaware River trail – Frankford Creek trail – Frankford Creek parkland – Citywide bike plan • Use for Vacant Land in Neighborhoods – Community gardens

BELOW: Mike Boyer of DVRPC presents the methodology the Citywide Systems group used to determine priority investment areas.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

– Urban agriculture – Tree nursery/orchards

BELOW: A photo of an abandoned rail bridge along the Schuylkill River taken during the evening boat trip on July 28. Extending riverfront trails and reuse of formerly industrial land were two important issues that the Citywide Systems group discussed.

– Side yards/side lots – Alternative energy sources – Solar, wind power – Recreation facilities in areas based on neighborhood level analysis – City regulatory obstacles currently exist, so need better public property management • Potential environmental impacts – Improved air quality – Improved water quality – Improved access to resources – Remediated brownfields, more efficient use of urban land

The group also identified the Philadelphia Community Transportation Initiative and PennDOT as potential funding sources for design interventions that define the overall “circulation system” of the city and region. Conclusion The Citywide Systems group was tasked with an important challenge: to think about transportation and natural systems as integrated and interdependent, and to discuss mutually beneficial projects that would aid the city and region. Through this discussion, it became clear that in order to identify projects, one needs criteria at both the city and regional level for prioritizing infrastructure investments, because transit and natural systems transcend traditional political boundaries. The list of “value centers” and “value corridors” begins to apply this sort of strategic thinking on a local level by making decisions using factors beyond ridership models and population trends to include potential economic development spin-offs, equity considerations, environmental impact and the bundling of public services (i.e., how a street can serve both auto traffic and stormwater management, and if designed well, can create a framework for private investment). This reinforced the concept of “triple-bottom-line investing” to support economic, ecological and equity goals. Philadelphia can leverage its existing assets. This does not mean “quick-fix” solutions or the selection of only one or two big projects. Small and incremental investments can have important impacts, as long as they are strategically identified and planned in the context of larger systems and goals. Strategic investments can be made to fill gaps in

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

our existing transportation and open space systems, and if tied to land use policy, can improve the value and efficiency of our citywide systems. As one group member said, “Philadelphia cannot continue the pattern of ‘filling gaps like potholes.” It must be done in a meaningful and integrated way.” As was established in Tuesday’s discussion, “trend is not destiny,” so the region has an opportunity to plan its growth in a focused and strategic manner. Especially when connected to land use, the group’s examination of corridors in addition to stand-alone centers is important. Further exploration of the potential of corridors would require comprehensive development strategies and investment financing, but it is important to consider for Philadelphia as well as the entire region. In order for such projects to succeed, consideration of affordable housing, geographic and social equity, and pedestrian activity is needed.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

BELOW: The Airport group hears from Allan A’Hara of AECOM, PHL’s planning consultant.

Philadelphia International Airport: Urban design

separation and secondary runway length. The airport is working on an expansion plan to build an additional

Derek Moore, Skidmore Owings & Merrill, team leader

runaway to accommodate increased traffic and reduce delays. The plan has become controversial, as Delaware County and Tinicum Township officials sued Philadelphia in May 2009 over its plans to acquire land in Tinicum Township without permission. The lawsuit says the city believes it can acquire land without permission, though others say Philadelphia is required by state law to negotiate with its neighbors over expansion plans. Charge The goal of this session was to: • Think beyond runway expansion. • Draft ideas for how Philadelphia International Airport as well as nearby areas such as the Navy Yard can be designed and integrated to strengthen both the airport and the surrounding area. • Revisit the idea of development strategies around the airport based on the previous day’s discussions from the Airport and Transportation groups. • Determine whether the airport should become a portal for the region or the center of a “mini-city” developed immediately around it; whatever the answer, sketch out design alternatives. • Identify necessary linkages between the airport and areas within Philadelphia itself.

Existing Conditions Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), owned and operated by the City of Philadelphia, has seen dramatic increases in activity in recent years despite its physical constraints. In 2007 PHL handled approximately 499,683 aircraft operations and 32 million passengers—it was the 10th busiest airport in the U.S. in terms of operations, yet it has the smallest land area of any major U.S. international airport. The Federal Aviation Administration has identified PHL as contributing to delays throughout the National Airspace System due to insufficient primary runway

Suggested Questions to Answer • What are our base principles/standards established by the work of the Airport and Transportation groups from the day before?

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

• Should the airport become a portal for the region or the center of a “mini-city” developed

– Primarily, the airport should be the gateway to the city and the region.

immediately around it? • What are the necessary linkages or service standards to ensure efficient connectivity between the airport and important nodes within Philadelphia is established? • Can the airport connect with the Navy Yard to strengthen this area of the city?

– Given the proximity of the airport to Center City and University City, substantial new collateral development at the airport would siphon energy from the city itself. – Existing development in the vicinity of the airport, such as the Navy Yard, should be supported by strengthened connections to the airport—these can be “ready-made” airport city districts. – Despite the priority on strengthening Center City, the airport should have some close-in nonaeronautical support facilities, such as hotels and other passenger-specific development. • Create an airport experience (and start with the Ground Transportation Center). – Promote a robust and flexible interface between the airport and groundside access in order to enhance the passenger experience—and to set the stage for a world-class new terminal. – A Ground Transportation Center (GTC) at the airport should be promoted. A GTC is included in the current Airport Expansion Plan, but the charrette group proposed expanding on this idea to accommodate all expected access modes, including modes favored by airport employees. It should form the basis of a new, world-class entrance to the airport, the city and the region.

Discussion Building upon the previous day’s discussion and proposals, and with the addition of two representatives from Philadelphia International Airport to the group, the team arrived at the following principles that served as the basis for their proposals: • Keep in mind the airport’s long-term redevelopment plans. The airport representatives indicated that, in the long term, after this current Expansion Plan, the airport could consider extending a runway and creating a new terminal complex with people movers. Therefore, the current focal point of the airport could shift, and this should be kept in perspective in this exercise. • Maximize assets to make the airport a regional center. – Strengthen existing transit access – Add new transit access (light rail, trolley and city bus, scheduled bus/HOV) to neighborhoods and throughout the region. – Enhance efficiency and appearance of connections to Center City • Use connections to the airport to catalyze development.

Proposals • Regional Access: The main ideas suggested by this charrette group the day before (i.e., launching a series of scheduled higher-occupancy “rubber tire” collector points going to the airport from employment centers around the region) were reiterated today. The

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

BELOW: A sketch drawn by the Airport group showing its ideas of a greened R1 corridor and an enhanced Ground Transportation Center that serves as a “gateway” to the region.

size and type of vehicle would vary depending on demand. Scheduled bus services from a dedicated

as currently possible, where a visible and branded “people-mover” would be constructed to transport

facility would collect passengers from the region and provide regular, reliable airport service. – Bus facilities could do “double-duty” for more local transit needs. For example, they could be located at existing SEPTA, PATCO or New Jersey Transit stations. – A more detailed study should be conducted to determine the best applications for such a service. – As a corollary to this idea, the group discussed the possibility of implementing HOV lanes on nearby expressways and interstates for employee van pools and express shuttle service. – The group considered adding a stop along the Amtrak Northeast Corridor line as close to the airport

passengers from the Amtrak line to the airport. However, the group ultimately concluded that this intervention was too expensive, and efforts should be dedicated to enhancing the connection at 30th Street Station instead. • City Access: Transit interventions that were discussed the day before were further honed and crafted during this day’s session. They include: – Make 30th Street Station the primary intermodal connection to the airport by enhancing accessibility at the station between lines like Amtrak, SEPTA Regional Rail, SEPTA subway and New Jersey Transit. Since extending high-speed rail from 30th Street to the airport does not seem likely, the visibility and ease of the 30th Street connection as the airport gateway must be improved through such measures as upgraded equipment and wayfinding, better signalization and track capacity, and the ability to run an R1 express that has a branded identity as the Airport Connector. The transit connection must be made just as convenient (if not more so) than any other travel mode to the airport. The group said that the ideal rail frequency was once every 15 to 20 minutes (compared with the Heathrow Express in London, which has a 20-minute frequency). – There are operational issues associated with increased frequency and running an express line (e.g., costly track upgrades), but the group concluded it was an important enough idea to explore. Installing more visible time indicators showing how much time is remaining until the next train arrives would be helpful

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

R1 RAIL 3OTH ST STATION

UNIVERSITY CITY STATION

GRAYS FERRY STATION

63RD ST STATION #36 SEPTA TROLLEY R2 RAIL/AMTRAK POTENTIAL REVITALIZATION AREAS

FOOD DISTRIBUTION CENTER USPS

NEW STATION ENHANCED STATION

R1 RAIL

NEW LIGHT RAIL STATION PROPOSED LIGHT RAIL EXISTING RAIL PROPOSED TROLLEY EXTENSION

84TH ST STATION NAVY YARD GROUND TRANSPORT STATION WILDLIFE REFUGE

WATER TAXI

5000 10000

20000 25000 ft

ABOVE: This map is a digitized version of the Airport group’s final vision for transportation improvements and development opportunities around the airport. Proposals include a new branding of 30th Street Station as the Airport Connection for a “one-ticket ride,” a grand new Ground Transportation Center as the multimodal gateway into Philadelphia, a new light rail line from Broad Street and Pattison Avenue to connect to the Sports Complex, an extension of the No. 36 SEPTA trolley, and a repopulating of stops along a newly greened R1 SEPTA line to enhance development opportunities in Grays Ferry and Southwest Philadelphia. The combination of all these transportation improvements makes Philadelphia itself the “aerotropolis.”

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

as well. – This would not achieve the desired goal of a “one-seat ride” to the airport for everyone, but it could become a “one-ticket ride”: a seamless transfer point between rail lines with minimal level changes so you do not even know you are transferring. – If another track can be acquired after the high-speed rail corridor is determined, reliable local and express service could be coordinated. – Check-in and baggage claim could also be handled at 30th Street or at other stops along the R1 line to ease the airport experience once the passenger arrives. – Extending PATCO service to 30th Street, which would help increase airport access for New Jersey residents, would dovetail with this effort. – Assuming an R1 express to the airport can be achieved, new stations should be added to the R1 local that would help catalyze development and increase access to parts of West and Southwest Philadelphia. Proposed stops along the existing line include Grays Ferry, Bartram’s Garden and 61st Street. – The Eastwick station, the final R1 stop before the airport, could then be revamped to become part of the new Ground Transportation Center (described in more detail below) as a new airport gateway for local passengers. – Extend the Broad Street Line (BSL) from its terminus at Pattison Avenue south to the Navy Yard. – Add a light rail connection from BSL that extends westward from Broad Street to the airport across the Platt Bridge. Though the group suggested Oregon Avenue as the connection point on Tuesday, they concluded on Wednesday that Pattison Avenue would be the more natural connection to link the

airport to the Sports Complex. – The light rail could also extend west of the airport into Delaware County, and east of Broad Street to connect to the future PATCO riverfront line along the Delaware. – These two additions could take business to the Navy Yard and Center City, and take employees to the airport. Expansion would connect thousands of low-skilled jobs to the airport. – Extend the No. 36 SEPTA trolley from its terminus in Southwest Philadelphia across I-95 to connect to the airport terminals. • Ground Transportation Center at Airport: The group proposed to fuse this concept with the airport’s own GTC concept as the nucleus of a future improved airport terminal, either in this round of redevelopment or in the next round. This new GTC would be either in the position outlined in the current Airport Expansion Plan, or further expanded if the existing terminal layout is repurposed in future airport redevelopment plans. This facility must accommodate all possible airport access modes, as well as rental car. – It could also have some terminal passenger processing functions (e.g., check-in, baggage handling). – It should be located to support the near-term and long-term redevelopment of the airport. – The Eastwick station on the SEPTA R1 line was discussed as a possible site for this new GTC. – It would serve as a world-class entrance to the airport and the city. • Other Access: The group also explored ferryboat connections between the airport and various centers

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

on the Philadelphia and New Jersey sides of the Delaware River, which could help spur multimodal,

choices that help the region, the city, targeted neighborhoods and airport employees. These include

transit-oriented riverfront development.

the branding of 30th Street Station as the airport gateway (via the R1 connection), the multiple new local connections via light rail and trolley access, and the enhanced Ground Transportation Center.

• Airport-Related Development: The idea of a focused development strategy around the airport was discussed in more detail during this session, and the group suggested the following multitier setup: – Reserve zone adjacent to the airport for high-value, close-in collateral development. – Reserve secondary area for airport collateral development. – Designate tertiary area to the north for logistics and industrial development, possibly airportrelated, at some of the underutilized industrial sites just north of the airport. – Connect to other development sites between the airport and 30th Street, including the DuPont Crescent. • Create an Airport Experience Through Design: The group concluded that the trip to the airport by rail or road does not serve Philadelphia well as a gateway, so this “front-door experience” must be improved through such suggested measures as greening the rail corridor, installing public art or enhancing the industrial vista of crossing the bridge into the city as part of Philadelphia’s image. – The issue of how terminal buildings could serve as gateways was raised, but not discussed in detail. Responses to HUD-DOT-EPA Principles Provide more transportation choices The ideas provide a diversity of transportation

Promote equitable, affordable housing While not directly providing affordable housing, the growth of the airport will create many low-skilled jobs, which will allow workers to afford housing closer to Center City. The proposals provide more and better access to the airport for employees from city neighborhoods, which will improve overall affordability (when considering housing and transportation costs together).

BELOW: This bird’s-eye view of the main airport entrance shows the tangle of highway and rail infrastructure that limits northern expansion (source: City Planning Commission).

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

Enhance economic competitiveness Better airport connections for businesses are essential as part of the Philadelphia region’s interest in marketing itself as a future employment center. Better airport connections for employees and residents keep costs low. Support existing communities A focused development strategy that channels development to former industrial areas between the airport and Center City will support existing communities by easing nonresidential development pressure in existing residential neighborhoods, which is inevitable as the airport expands. Suggestions for increased local access to transit, such as adding stops on the R1 line, extending the No. 36 trolley and adding a light rail line, will support existing communities in South, West and Southwest Philadelphia. Coordinate policies and leverage investment The group’s proposals involve close coordination between airport and railroads, and between railroads. Federal initiatives such as the High-Speed Rail Act could encourage interagency partnerships (e.g., SEPTA-Amtrak) with the carrot of federal money and increased ridership. The proposals support the airport as an environmental steward by requiring that new airport buildings meet LEED criteria and creating new green buffers complementing the adjacent Heinz Wildlife Refuge. Value communities and neighborhoods—enhance unique characteristics See above, No. 2 and No. 4. Also, the group’s ideas

regarding improving the “gateway” imaging and arrival experience by greening the R1 corridor and enhancing the Platt Bridge vistas focus on showcasing Philadelphia’s unique characteristics. Conclusion Philadelphia International Airport can make a virtue of its constrained site and its proximity to Center City. Redevelopment of the airport on the locked site with the right runway and terminal configuration is the most efficient use of resources for the near to mid-term in terms of cost and energy efficiency, and the group’s proposals do not preclude the long-term concept of a midfield concourse configuration. Multiple enhanced transportation connections between the airport and all areas of the city and region make Philadelphia itself the “aerotropolis,” with new growth areas at the Navy Yard and on the Lower Schuylkill River activated by this increased access and a new master plan for redeveloping these evolving sites (as discussed in greater detail in the Central Schuylkill group). The signature element of this group’s work was the enhanced connection between the airport and 30th Street Station (and thence to its rail network) with the combination of (1) a new multimodal Ground Transportation Center at the airport, (2) enhanced intermodal connections at 30th Street and (3) a rapid and dedicated SEPTA R1 service running within a “greened” corridor with rail cars that contain luggage holders and other equipment geared toward air travelers. While the group did not look at on-airport planning as closely as connections to and development around the airport, it became clear that the interface gateway—the Ground Transportation Center—could be a major catalyst not only for improving the access

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

experience, but to provide a more satisfactory terminal and airside experience.

be explored further. Successes can be seen in examples such as the Port Authority of New York and

This underscores the importance of a more detailed and focused process to determine the best access routes to the airport and the future of high-speed rail through the Philadelphia region. Federal funding for high-speed rail corridors appears likely, so it is important that corridor alignment and stops fit with a vision for the future growth and economic geography of the Philadelphia region. After consideration of alternatives, the group determined that a high-speed rail stop at 30th Street Station is preferable, with an enhanced connection to the airport on an upgraded R1 alignment as described above. The Central Schuylkill charrette group explored rerouting the Amtrak Northeast Corridor to enhance connections to the airport, but the airport group did not. The group concluded that it is highly unlikely that high-speed rail would sanction another stop so close to 30th Street Station. The existing Northeast Corridor alignment is about 1.5 miles from the airportâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;to move the airport to it, or vice versa, would be extremely expensive and of marginal benefit. A new station and link (e.g., as at Newark Liberty International Airport) is an alternative that was discussed in the group on Tuesday, but this alternative would require yet another rail system, or an additional transfer for passengers who already had to transfer at 30th Street. Also, the interest in making the airport a regional center begs the question of whether the airport should continue to be owned and operated by the City of Philadelphia, or if a regional authority should be created to better further this goal. Each alternative has positives and negatives, but it is an idea that should

New Jersey, which manages bridges, tunnels, airports and transit in New York and Northern New Jersey.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

Central Schuylkill Urban Design Marilyn Jordan Taylor, dean, PennDesign and Cindy Sanders, Olin Partnership, team leaders

BELOW: PennDesign Dean Marilyn Jordan Taylor opens the discussion by outlining the economic development opportunities of the DuPont Crescent site.

Existing Conditions The “Central Schuylkill” is the stretch of land along the east side of the Schuylkill River from the north side of the South Street Bridge to the south side of the Grays Ferry Bridge. Current buildings and uses are either low-density (i.e., strip commercial and light industrial), vacant or underutilized (the former School District building), or soon to be marketed for sale (Marshall Labs site on the DuPont Crescent). However, the Central Schuylkill is surrounded by opportunity—it is within walking distance of Center City and University City, adjacent to some stable residential

neighborhoods, easily accessible from Philadelphia International Airport and 30th Street Station, and will soon be the newest addition to the Schuylkill Banks riverfront trail. There is ample land along the Central Schuylkill for future redevelopment, so the group focused on how to unlock its potential. The goal of this group was not to assert the Central Schuylkill as a competing economic center with Center City and University City, but rather to brainstorm potential complementary uses given its proximity to existing centers and large vacant parcels. Charge The goal of Wednesday’s session was to: • Reimagine the Central Schuylkill as a modern employment center for the Philadelphia region. • Identify which assets are most important to the area’s success and focus the design around maximizing those assets (there can be alternative designs if there are multiple answers within the group). • Design the Central Schuylkill as a linkage area, with transportation connections running through to connect economic centers such as University City, Center City and the airport. • Identify new connections or strategies for improving existing connections that will increase the economic viability of the area. • Detail alternatives for specific sites along the Central Schuylkill—the Marshall Labs site and former School District building being two possible examples. Suggested Questions to Answer • What is the Central Schuylkill’s identity as the

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

next modern employment center in the Philadelphia region?

fact, the Schuylkill River Development Corporation has already reached an agreement to acquire the riverside

• Which nearby assets are the keys to unlocking the area’s potential, and how does this affect the site design? • What are potential linkages and transportation linkages across the Central Schuylkill that can improve the viability of adjacent economic centers as well as the Central Schuylkill’s own viability as a development site? • What would two emblematic site designs look like on the Central Schuylkill?

land along the DuPont Crescent for a trail and park extension more than 250 feet in width. • There is a growing future need for additional medical facilities (expanding from the Penn Health System and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia), research facilities and commercialization. • The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Connects plan highlights the importance of improved linkages between Center City and University City, and the Central Schuylkill corridor presents an opportunity for such improvement. Penn’s redevelopment of the former Postal Service property on the west side of the Schuylkill River is already underway. • From the neighborhoods of West Shore in West

Discussion The group included representatives from numerous nearby stakeholders, including Center City District, University City District, Schuylkill River Development Corporation, Penn Facilities and Real Estate Services, Drexel University, University of the Sciences, University City Science Center and Children’s Hospital. These stakeholders provided valuable information about the history and present-day condition of the area, and helped identify the following opportunities along the “Central Schuylkill” corridor: • The Schuylkill River as a two-sided opportunity for growth, and a significant resource for Center City, University City and adjacent neighborhoods. – The University Avenue Bridge was immediately identified as a connection opportunity, since it puts the DuPont Crescent within walking distance of University City. • The river is also an opportunity for recreation, as Schuylkill Banks has extended its bike and jogging trail to Locust Street and has plans for connections to South Street and westward to Bartram’s Garden. In

BELOW: This bird’s-eye view shows the DuPont Crescent looking south, with I-76, Grays Ferry Avenue and the University Avenue Bridge flanking the site (source: City Planning Commission).

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

RIGHT: A sketch drawn by Michael Larice of PennDesign and Nando Micale of WRT showing proposed transportation improvements across the Central and Lower Schuylkill site to improve regional connectivity and transit access for underserved neighborhoods.

Philadelphia to Filter Square in Center City, increased connectivity to the river is needed.

infrastructure was identified as an opportunity for future plans. Along this corridor, there is freight rail,

• Lands such as the DuPont Crescent represent opportunities as large, contiguous areas available for residential and mixed-use development that could provide connectivity to Center City as well as views of the skyline and of historic Woodland Cemetery. • Grays Ferry Avenue is an important east-west connection for unlocking the potential of the Central Schuylkill area as a population or employment center. • Also crucial is the link to the airport, which is currently possible at the Central Schuylkill via I-76 and the R1 Regional Rail line. Questions were raised about SEPTA’s connectivity and if existing freight rail rights-of-way could be shared. • The abundance of north-south transportation

passenger rail and roads of various capacities, so the group decided to consider whether the current configuration of infrastructure was most efficient. Based on these factors, the group believed the area could be attractive to research and development companies that might otherwise choose to locate in suburban office parks. Unlike many suburban sites, locations within the study area offer both proximity to major health and science campuses and easy access to the airport. The location between Center City and University City also suggests that there could be some potential for a live-work community. The following guidelines helped inform how the group thought about the project area: • Any site design must give priority to the river as an asset. This does not necessarily conflict with a possible industrial use in the future—many different mixes of uses could appropriately honor the river. • It is important to “think big” and look past the short-term concerns of some of the local stakeholders in order to produce a design concept for the Central Schuylkill. The area has its immediate constraints, but they must be suspended in order to consider future development opportunities. • Any alternatives, whether urban design or transportation, should focus on connecting the assets we already have, namely Center City and University City. • While a significant amount of land will likely become available for development in the next 30 to 50 years along the Schuylkill River (from Penn south

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

OPEN SPACE PHILADELPHIA CITY ZOO FAIRMOUNT PARK

30th ST STATION

WOODLANDS CEMETERY

NEW PENN WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PARCEL

TRANSIT HUB

NEW BRIDGE

TRANSIT HUB

NEW GRAYS FERRY WASHINGTON AVE LIGHT RAIL BARTRAMS GARDEN

#11 TROLLEY

RAIL TRANSPORT

ELEVATED VIADUCT

TRANSIT HUB

SCHUYLKILL EXPRESSWAY

TRANSIT HUB OREGON AVE TO COLUMBUS BLVD WATERFRONT

SUNOCO LANDS TRANSIT HUB R1 RAIL

TRANSIT HUB FDR PARK I 95 HIGHWAY FREIGHT LINE

NEW AMTRAK LINE I 95 HIGHWAY NEW PENROSE SEPTA LINE (TO AIRPORT)

HIGHWAY

HIGHWAYS

NAVY YARD

DELAWARE RIVER

FREIGHT RAIL AMTRAK

FORT MIFFLIN

EXISTING SEPTA NEW SEPTA OPEN SPACE

5000

10000

20000ft

10000

20000

40000ft

ABOVE: This map is a digitized version of the Central Schuylkill group’s vision of large-scale transportation improvement proposals, including decoupling Amtrak and SEPTA so that a new high-speed Amtrak line connects 30th Street to the airport via an existing freight rail viaduct, rerouting Interstate 76 and making it an at-grade “boulevard” through Grays Ferry, and adding light-rail lines to increase SEPTA connections to underserved neighborhoods.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

to the airport), the group must focus on logically available sites in the short term. The area from the

BELOW: A photo of part of the DuPont Crescent site that will soon be up for sale. Philadelphia would like DuPont to donate it so the city can market it as a future employment center.

South Street Bridge to the Grays Ferry Bridge was identified for this reason. The group then decided on two focus areas for the design exercise: • Potential transportation linkages across the Central Schuylkill that enhanced the development potential of the DuPont Crescent while also incorporating the HUD-DOT-EPA principles of improving transportation choices and supporting existing communities and economic centers. The group would study five transportation systems: freight rail, high-speed rail, SEPTA rail, vehicular, and trails and waterfronts. • The development potential of the DuPont

Crescent, specifically studying existing assets on both sides of the Schuylkill. Proposals The group that looked at transportation linkages across the Central Schuylkill began by examining the numerous systems of regional transportation infrastructure that run through or are adjacent to the project area, and considered design alternatives that have local as well as regional benefits. The group identified two main problems to address first: (1) the sharing of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor and SEPTA R1 Airport line, which slowed service for both and could have implications for high-speed rail considerations, and (2) the tangle of infrastructure, primarily I-76, on the west side of the Schuylkill that limited development opportunities for Penn and connectivity to land such as the DuPont Crescent. The group proposed the following ideas for future transportation linkages: • Connecting High-Speed Rail to the Airport – One option is to build a people-mover from a stop along the existing Amtrak line to the airport. The group saw this as an expensive solution that did not address larger infrastructure constraints along the corridor. – An alternative is to use the elevated rail viaduct that runs north-south on 25th Street (currently used for freight rail) as a way to decouple SEPTA and Amtrak. The R1 line would continue to run along its current track, while Amtrak would run south on the existing 25th Street viaduct until I-95, where a new rail line would be constructed parallel to I-95. The rail line would stop at the airport before linking up to

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

where Amtrak currently runs along I-95 (a few miles south of Philadelphia). Scheduling would be discussed

elevated expressway again running eastward above Packer Avenue to connect to the Walt Whitman Bridge

so that Amtrak could use the viaduct for high-speed rail while not interfering with freight access—since high-speed rail is not likely to run 24 hours a day, rail sharing would not seem to be impossible. Freight rail service would continue on this important corridor, which moves east to the Navy Yard and the Port of Philadelphia. – Questions remain about whether the designers of the high-speed line would designate a stop at the airport given its close proximity to 30th Street Station (the airport charrette group concluded that they would not), as well as the extent to which the turn across the Schuylkill River would force the high-speed trains to slow down as they approach 30th Street. – However, group members believed that high-speed trains would be moving slowly as they enter and exit city centers anyway, so this would not likely be an issue. – This intervention would connect high-speed rail using existing rights-of-way, and increase R1 speeds by decoupling Amtrak from the SEPTA rail corridor.

and New Jersey (its current configuration), and the boulevard would continue south along the current 26th Street alignment to connect to I-95 and the airport. – This creates the potential on Penn’s campus along the river for a large development parcel, which is currently inaccessible due to the expressway alignment, and also allows for new trail extension opportunities not currently possible. This parcel becomes Penn’s new “front door” to the city, something it currently lacks. – This would require a different bridge across the river than the current I-76 bridge due to its new alignment, but would allow for a newly pedestrian-

• Moving I-76 and Bringing It to Grade – Along the eastern edge of Penn’s campus, I-76 is shifted inland toward the University before it cuts across the Schuylkill near the University Avenue Bridge, where it is reconfigured as a true at-grade boulevard. This boulevard would consist of “fast lanes” as well as frontage roads that are humanscaled, which opens up the opportunity to add transit and bring people to this underutilized area, making it attractive for redevelopment. I-76 would become an

BELOW: This bird’s-eye view shows the various rail and highway systems the Central Schuylkill group wrestled with in order to enhance access to and through the DuPont Crescent area (source: City Planning Commission).

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

BELOW: A sketch drawn by the Central Schuylkill group showing the various development pressures and opportunities surrounding the DuPont Crescent site.

friendly University Avenue Bridge connection. – This intervention not only addresses the

key activation point for the DuPont Crescent. – The Penrose Avenue stop would be a

tangle of infrastructure at the Central Schuylkill, but also provides more logical auto access to the airport via I-76.

connection to another new light rail line, which begins at Broad and Oregon (an existing stop on the Broad Street Line) and extends diagonally along Moyamensing Avenue and Penrose Avenue before crossing the Platt Bridge and into the airport, providing easy local airport access for residents not currently served by transit. – While the airport group settled on Pattison Avenue as the BSL connection of their airport light rail line in order to serve the Sports Complex, this group settled on Oregon Avenue because it served more dense residential neighborhoods and had the greatest potential to affect the highest number of residents and airport employees. – The Oregon Avenue line would run eastward along Oregon to link up to the proposed PATCO line along the Delaware riverfront. – The Broad Street Line would be extended from Pattison Avenue to the Navy Yard, expediting the Yard’s redevelopment. – Finally, a light rail line would be constructed to run along Washington Avenue starting at Columbus Boulevard, then running along Grays Ferry Avenue (with a stop at the DuPont Crescent) and over the bridge to connect to the SEPTA No. 11 trolley, which runs on Woodland Avenue. This provides much-needed transit access in South Philadelphia, as well as a seamless link from South Philadelphia to West Philadelphia.

• Increasing SEPTA Connections to Underserved Areas – As previously mentioned, the decoupling of Amtrak and SEPTA allows the R1 line to connect more efficiently to the airport. – A new light rail line would run down the center of “I-76 or Schuylkill Boulevard,” with transit hubs at Grays Ferry Avenue, Passyunk Avenue and Penrose Avenue. – The connection at Grays Ferry becomes the

All of the above interventions bring new people to the Central Schuylkill, link residents and employees

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

SCIENCE CENTER

DREXEL UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PENN PARK UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEM CLARK PARK WOODLANDS CEMETERY UNIVERSITY OF THE SCIENCES IN PHILADELPHIA SEPTA TROLLEY DEPOT

WEST SHORE CEMEGYS PARK NAVAL SQUARE BARTRAMS GARDEN

INSTITUTION MAINLY RESIDENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL PARK OR BOULEVARD

500

1000

2000ft

ABOVE: This map is a digitized version of the Central Schuylkill’s analysis of nearby neighborhoods, institutions and economic centers that could contribute to the future development of the DuPont Crescent area. The map also identifies the importance of two-sided connections across the Schuylkill River, specifically via the Grays Ferry and University Avenue bridges and the conversion of roads such as Grays Ferry Avenue and 34th Street into more multimodal thoroughfares.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

BELOW: A view from the University Avenue Bridge shows the DuPont Crescent’s proximity to University City, an important economic center.

across the city and region, and raise the stakes for currently underutilized sites in the Lower Schuylkill to

including housing accommodating a range of income levels.

be redeveloped. Though a trail system was not examined in depth, the infrastructure moves addressed here open up potential for creating a new “green” system along the Schuylkill River, with new access opportunities and land availability. Most of the opportunities for green connections identified in this area in the Schuylkill River Master Plan are enhanced because of these interventions.

• Research and development organizations and companies desiring proximity to University City institutions and easy regional and airport access— particularly those that might otherwise choose a suburban location. • Nurturing the existing residential communities on both sides of the river, while encouraging both new workplaces and residents on the DuPont Crescent side of the river. • As development occurs, a range of retail to serve the weekday population and residents. • Integrated infrastructure that encourages walking, bicycling and transit use within the neighborhood and to (and between) University City and Center City neighborhoods. – An especially important component of this connectivity is the University Avenue Bridge. Views of the river and the Philadelphia skyline from the bridge (in addition to the beauty of the structure itself) present opportunity, but neither landing is particularly welcoming or helpful in orienting; the bridge itself is not currently very comfortable for pedestrians or bicyclists. • A reimagined and redesigned Grays Ferry Avenue as a “boulevard” that integrates transit, automobile and bicycle users in a pedestrian-friendly environment. This would connect to 47th Street in West Philadelphia, thereby serving as the central spine of a revitalized Central Schuylkill neighborhood and creating a gateway on either side of the Grays Ferry Bridge. – Grays Ferry Avenue is a key transportation component that links across the Schuylkill River and

The DuPont Crescent group did not propose a specific site plan and development program, but it did outline the following vision for future growth: • A mixed-use, mid-rise, live-work community,

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

ties into Washington Avenue, another important arterial that extends to the Delaware River.

Responses to HUD-DOT-EPA Principles Provide more transportation choices

• The Schuylkill River will be the centerpiece of the development, with the Schuylkill River Development Corporation’s plan for this site fully realized and potentially expanded. – Realigning I-76 further inland on the west side and the at-grade nature on the east side increases the opportunity for smoother trail connections that do not currently exist because of the expressway structure. • In general, street improvements that focus on the pedestrian and bicycle condition are necessary on Grays Ferry Avenue, 34th Street and other nearby access points. • Access to river recreation, particularly for neighborhood residents. • Celebrating the historic resources along Grays Ferry—from the Naval Home (the country’s first Naval Academy) near its eastern end, and the place where crowds gathered to greet George Washington as he and his party crossed the Schuylkill on the path to New York for his inauguration at the western end. Also, some of the iconic industrial buildings could be adapted and integrated with new development. • The group’s ideas of desirable development specifically excluded big-box stores and other automobile-scaled activities. These were viewed as weakening, rather than strengthening, the connections to and between University City and Center City. • The group also noted that transportation access from this site to the airport and other regional centers must be addressed. Specifically, the northern approach to the west side of the Schuylkill across the University Avenue Bridge should be cleaned up and clarified.

The proposed design interventions include many new transportation alternatives, improving local connectivity for neighborhood residents, citywide connectivity for residents and employees, and regional connectivity with improvements made to I-76 and the R1 Airport line. Promote equitable, affordable housing Though affordable housing was not directly addressed in this charrette group, the proposed transit interventions would increase accessibility for neighborhood residents and therefore reduce their overall cost of living (when factoring in the cost of transportation as well as housing).

BELOW: PennDesign professor John Landis comments on the proposals made by the Central Schuylkill charrette group.

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

Enhance economic competitiveness If implemented, the development guidelines for the DuPont Crescent would enhance the economic competitiveness of the area—transforming it from a disparate, auto-centric area to a human-scaled and multimodal city neighborhood with greater density and job growth. Further, the proposed transportation improvements provide high-speed rail connection and improved local rail connection to the airport, and address the I-76 entrance to West Philadelphia in a way that stimulates development along both sides of the Schuylkill River. Support existing communities The development proposal for the DuPont Crescent supports adjacent existing communities by providing economic development and residential and employment choice to the area. Further, the transportation interventions help existing communities such as University City, West Shore, Grays Ferry, Girard Estate, and other parts of West and South Philadelphia. Coordinate policies and leverage investment Although the DuPont Crescent project would be privately developed, with the right program, it could leverage nearby development pressures/catalysts such as Penn, University of the Sciences, Penn Health and Children’s Hospital. The transportation improvements would benefit from the High-Speed Rail Act, the reauthorization of the surface transportation bill and energy efficiency block grants. All of the above could be coordinated around this project, which has local and regional implications. However, a question remains about whether high-speed rail planners would

be interested in a proposal that shifts the existing Amtrak alignment. Value communities and neighborhoods—enhance unique characteristics The group’s focus on the Schuylkill River as the centerpiece of future development in this area ensures that any future development will build off the area’s unique characteristics by celebrating the river instead of turning away from it (as is the current development pattern in this area). The focus of the Central Schuylkill development guidelines on public space for pedestrians and bicyclists shows a return to valuing the human-scale elements that make Philadelphia neighborhoods so livable. Further, increased transit connectivity enhances the unique characteristics of Center City and West Philadelphia as two of the most transit-friendly areas in Philadelphia. Conclusion The Central Schuylkill charrette group dreamt big, which was important for reimagining an area with a mix of opportunities and constraints. The group noted that design interventions do not have to be done all at once; they can be incremental as part of a longer-term vision to revitalize a stretch of the Schuylkill River that has become dormant over time. Beyond the development opportunity of the DuPont Crescent, the results produced by this group raised many potential questions for next steps that the City of Philadelphia could undertake: • First and most logical would be a master plan for the Central/Lower Schuylkill. Given the surrounding development opportunities and large stretches of underutilized land, a master plan is needed to outline

Charrette Discoveries: Day 2

priorities and establish a revitalization strategy for the area. The Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation has already commissioned Interface Studio, a local planning firm working on an inventory and marketing plan of Philadelphia’s industrial land, to do detailed site planning exercises on this site, among others. • Second, a closer look at the city and region’s vacant land is an important step toward a vision for the future. There are large stretches of land owned by Sunoco in the Lower Schuylkill that are currently vacant, but there are also vacant commercial corridors throughout our city and suburbs. There are numerous organizations with different approaches to filling in vacant land—PIDC will release its industrial land study in the fall, which will address this—and all such approaches must be considered when thinking about vacant land at a regional scale.

appendix

Appendix

CREDITS The 2009 Philadelphia Regional Infrastructure Charrette is a project of PennDesign, PennPraxis and the Penn Institute for Urban Research. It was organized in partnership with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability and the Metropolitan Caucus, and was funded by a grant from the William Penn Foundation and with the support of the Office of the Provost of the University of Pennsylvania. Organizing Group Laurie Actman, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability/ Metropolitan Caucus Eugenie Birch, Penn Institute for Urban Research Andrew Goodman, PennPraxis Alan Greenberger, Acting Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development Shawn McCaney, William Penn Foundation Amy Montgomery, Penn Institute for Urban Research Harris Steinberg, PennPraxis Marilyn Jordan Taylor, PennDesign Susan Wachter, Penn Institute for Urban Research PennPraxis Staff Harris Steinberg, FAIA, Executive Director Michael Greenle Bridget Keegan, AICP Andrew Goodman, LEED AP Jeffrey Knowles, LEED AP Francisco Allard Jeffrey Barg

charrette: • Laurie Actman, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability

We would like to thank the following people for their assistance in compiling materials in advance of the

and the Metropolitan Caucus • Paul Amos, Wharton Geospatial Initiative • Susan Baltake, Urban Land Institute • Nicole Cross, Philadelphia City Planning Commission • Calvin Davenger, Philadelphia International Airport • Victor Davis, Philadelphia City Planning Commission • Emily Dowdall, Planning Collective • Nick Frontino, Planning Collective • John Grady, Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation • Alan Greenberger, Acting Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, City of Philadelphia • Phil Hopkins, Select Greater Philadelphia • Brian Ivey, Division of Technology, City of Philadelphia • Greg Krykewycz, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission • Christy Kwan, Planning Collective • Paul Levy, Center City District • Donnie Maley, Planning Collective • Mary Ellen McCarty, Office of Watersheds, City of Philadelphia • Glenn McNichol, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission • Mark Muro, Brookings Institution • Scott Page, Interface Studio • James Querry, Division of Technology, City of Philadelphia • Clint Randall, Planning Collective • Barry Seymour, Delaware Valley Regional Planning

Appendix

Commission • Will Stevens, Delaware Valley Regional Planning

• • • •

Commission Julie Thompson, Planning Collective Alan Urek, Philadelphia City Planning Commission Amanda Wagner, Planning Collective Yimei Wang, Division of Technology, City of Philadelphia

We would like to give special thanks to the Planning Collective, who provided extensive mapping and research support in preparation for the charrette. They can be reached at info@planningcollective.com.

Organizing Principles At the federal level, the Office of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency have developed principles that challenge local governments and civic leaders to develop ideas for regionally connected transportation, energy, housing and environmental projects that transcend geopolitical boundaries in the name of creating sustainable communities. The HUD-DOT-EPA Principles are: Provide more transportation choices — Develop safe, reliable and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote public health. Promote equitable, affordable housing — Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to

increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation. Enhance economic competitiveness — Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic needs by workers, as well as expanded business access to markets. Support existing communities — Target federal funding toward existing communities—through such strategies as transit-oriented, mixed-use development and land recycling—to increase community revitalization, improve the efficiency of public works investments and safeguard rural landscapes. Coordinate policies and leverage investment — Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such as investing in locally generated renewable energy. Value communities and neighborhoods — Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe and walkable neighborhoods—rural, urban or suburban.

Appendix

CHARRETTE SCHEDULE

• The regional landscape: Mark Alan Hughes, Former Director of Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, City

Monday, July 27: Framing Philadelphia in the national debate Time: 6pm – 9pm Venue: Upper Gallery, Meyerson Hall (210 South 34th Street) Welcome and Overview • The Charge, Marilyn Jordan Taylor, Dean and Paley Professor, PennDesign • Remarks, Alan Greenberger, Acting Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, City of Philadelphia • The Work, Harris Steinberg, Executive Director, PennPraxis Dinner and presentation • The Region’s Economic Geography, Ryan Sweet, Senior Economist, Moody’s Economy • Response facilitated by Susan Wachter, Penn Institute for Urban Research –Tom Morr, President and CEO, Select Greater Philadelphia –Barry Seymour, Executive Director, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission –Steve Wray, Executive Director, Economy League of Greater Philadelphia

of Philadelphia • Philadelphia centers: Paul Levy, Director and CEO, Center City District • Discussion 10:30am – 4pm: Group work Explore regional transportation and open space systems and identify potential transformative infrastructure investments Groups: • Transportation (Rail, Light Rail, Subway, High Speed, Water, Highway) –Leader: Rachel Weinberger, PennPlanning • Natural Systems (stormwater, trails, waterfronts, green infrastructure) –Leader: Alex Krieger, Chan Krieger • Airport (physical, connections to region) –Leader: Marilyn Jordan Taylor, PennDesign; and Derek Moore, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill 4pm – 5:30pm: Report and discussion of final ideas, principles 5:30pm – 8:30pm: Schuylkill River site visit and dinner

Tuesday, July 28: Developing regional networks Venue: Upper Gallery, Meyerson Hall (210 South 34th Street) 8am – 8:30am: Breakfast 8:30am – 9am: Discussion of HUD and DOT “Sustainable Communities” Principles 9am – 10:30am: Presentations and discussion: regional strengths and weaknesses

Wednesday, July 29: Applying regional principles to case study sites in Philadelphia Venue: Upper Gallery, Meyerson Hall (210 South 34th Street) 7:30am – 8am: Breakfast and presentation of site context 8am – 2pm: Group work Groups: • Urban design along the Schuylkill River— strengthening the Center City-University City

100

Appendix

connections –Leaders: Marilyn Jordan Taylor, PennDesign;

• Alan Greenberger, Acting Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, City of

and Cindy Sanders, Olin Partnership • Transportation and natural systems connections between Philadelphia and the region –Leaders: Trent Lethco, Arup Inc.; and Alex Krieger, Chan Krieger Sieniewicz • Philadelphia International Airport –Leader: Derek Moore, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill 2pm – 3:30pm: Lunch and discussion of ideas • Facilitator: John Landis, Crossways Professor and Department Chair, PennPlanning 5:30pm – 8pm: Public Event Reshaping the City: New Visions for Urban Infrastructure Part of Penn Institute for Urban Research’s Philadelphia 360° series and Next American City magazine’s URBANEXUS series. Venue: Academy of Natural Sciences (19th Street and Benjamin Franklin Parkway) 5pm – 6:30pm: Invited reception sponsored by Next American City magazine 6:30pm – 8pm: Presentations and respondents Presentations • Alex Krieger, Founding Principal, Chan Krieger Sieniewicz, and Professor of Practice, Harvard Graduate School of Design • Trent Lethco, Associate Principal, Arup Inc. Local Respondents • Rina Cutler, Deputy Mayor for Transportation and Utilities, City of Philadelphia • Michael DiBerardinis, Commissioner, Department of Parks and Recreation, City of Philadelphia

Philadelphia • Facilitator: Marilyn Jordan Taylor, Dean and Paley Professor, PennDesign

Charrette Team Members

Tuesday, July 28 Regional Transportation • Weinberger, Rachel* — PennPlanning • Papageorge, Anne — Penn Real Estate • Allen, Walker — DVRPC • Levy, Paul — Center City District • Buckley, Stephen — Phila. Office of Transportation and Utilities • Landis, John — PennPlanning • Claflen, George — Design Advocacy Group • Coleman, Bev — NeighborhoodsNow • Micale, Nando — Wallace Roberts and Todd • Elbich, Elaine — PennDOT • Flemming, Alex — SEPTA • Dawson, Phil — City of Philadelphia • Box, Bob — Delaware River Port Authority • Sheffield, Bill — RiverLINE • Boyer, Mike — DVRPC • O’Rourke, Dennis — Amtrak • Frontino, Nick — Planning Collective • Randall, Clint — Planning Collective • Redding, Rick — PCPC • Graham, Tamika — Wilmington Area Planning Council • Swiatek, Bill — Wilmington Area Planning Council • Gladstein, Eva — ZCC

Appendix

• Dalfo, Tom — Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation

• Moore, Derek* — Skidmore Owings & Merrill • Sehnert, Paul — Penn Real Estate

• Urek, Alan — PCPC • Wood, Marilyn — 10,000 Friends of PA

• • • • • • • • • • •

Tuesday, July 28 Regional Natural Systems • Krieger, Alex* — Chan Krieger Sieniewicz • Marcinkoski, Christopher — Field Operations • DiBerardinis, Michael — Phila. Parks and Recreation • Hara, Mami — Wallace Roberts and Todd • Carten, Andrew — City of Trenton, NJ • Abrams, Glen — Phila. Water Department • Focht, Mark — Phila. Parks and Recreation • Slawson, Susan — Phila. Parks and Recreation • Muller, Kathy — Phila. Parks and Recreation • Craighead, Stephanie — Phila. Parks and Recreation • Alminana, Jose — Andropogon Associates • Featherstone, Jeffrey — Temple U. Center for Sustainable Communities • Wallis, Carolyn — PA Dept of Conservation and Natural Resources • Pitz, Andrew — Natural Lands Trust • Miller, Amy — DVRPC • Wagner, Amanda — Planning Collective • Thompson, Julie — Planning Collective • Schaaf, David — PCPC • Senior, Lee — University City District • Starr, Partick — PEC Tuesday, July 28 Philadelphia International Airport • Taylor, Marilyn Jordan* — PennDesign

Trainer, Nancy Rogo — Venturi Scott Brown Page, Scott — Interface Studio Morr, Tom — Select Greater Philadelphia Moog, Roger — DVRPC Goodman, Andrew — PennPraxis Dowdall, Emily — Planning Collective Olson, Natalia — H2L2, ZCC, PCPC Hicks, Charnelle — CH Planning Haak, John — PCPC Farmer, Arrus — PennPraxis Zimbabwe, Jess — Urban Land Institute

Wednesday, July 29 Citywide Systems: Transportation and Natural Systems • Lethco, Trent* — ARUP NYC • Krieger, Alex* — Chan Krieger Sieniewicz • DiBerardinis, Michael — Phila. Parks and Recreation • Marcinkoski, Christopher — Field Operations • Coleman, Bev — NeighborhoodsNow • Elbich, Elaine — PennDOT • Coker, Marion — SEPTA • Box, Bob — Delaware River Port Authority • Boyer, Mike — DVRPC • Hara, Mami — WRT • Alminana, Jose — Andropogon Associates • Landis, John — PennPlanning • Abrams, Glen — Phila. Water Department • Slawson, Susan — Phila. Parks and Recreation • Muller, Kathy — Phila. Parks and Recreation • Craighead, Stephanie — Phila. Parks and Recreation

101

102

Appendix

• Graham, Tamika — Wilmington Area Planning Council

• Taylor, Marilyn Jordan* — PennDesign • Papageorge, Anne — Penn Real Estate

• • • • • • •

• • • •

Redding, Rick — PCPC Urek, Alan — PCPC Pitz, Andrew — Natural Lands Trust Allen, Walker — DVRPC Randall, Clint — Planning Collective Dowdall, Emily — Planning Collective Wood, Marilyn — 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania

Wednesday, July 29 Philadelphia International Airport • Moore, Derek* — Skidmore Owings & Merrill • Page, Scott — Interface Studio • Haahs, Tim — Timothy Haahs & Associates • A’Hara, Allan — AECOM • Davenger, Calvin — Philadelphia International Airport • Morr, Tom — Select Greater Philadelphia • Moog, Roger — DVRPC • Haak, John — PCPC • Hicks, Charnelle — CH Planning • Terlizzi, Chris — Urban Land Institute • Dalfo, Tom — Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation • Farmer, Arrus — PennPraxis • Featherstone, Jeffrey — Temple U. Center for Sustainable Communities • Frontino, Nick — Planning Collective • Thompson, Julie — Planning Collective Wednesday, July 29 Central Schuylkill Urban Design • Sanders, Cindy* — Olin Partnership

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Blaik, Omar — u3 Ventures Larice, Michael — PennPlanning Miller, Amy — DVRPC Syrnick, Joe — Schuylkill River Development Corporation Chen, Mark — Children’s Hospital Bressi-Stoppe, Liz — University of the Sciences in Philadelphia Miller, Kimberly — Drexel Hess, Curt — Science Center Senior, Lee — University City District Sehnert, Paul — Penn Real Estate Levy, Paul — Center City District Olson, Natalia — H2L2/ZCC/PCPC Schaaf, David — PCPC Trainer, Nancy Rogo — Venturi Scott Brown Micale, Nando — Wallace Roberts and Todd Goodman, Andrew — PennPraxis

Plan Links Connections 2035 – The Regional Plan for a Sustainable Future: http://www.dvrpc.org/Connections/ Greenworks Philadelphia: http://www.phila.gov/ green/greenworks/ Imagine Philadelphia: http://www. imaginephiladelphia.org/index.html Next Great City: http://www.nextgreatcity.com/ Philadelphia Futures Studio: Visions for Philadelphia in 2040: http://www.planphilly.com/node/8950 Climate Change Studio, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/UPenn_ climatechange0109.pdf

Appendix

State of Center City, Center City District, 2009: http://www.centercityphila.org/docs/SOCC-2009.pdf

Hughes questioned whether intergovernmental cooperation between HUD, DOT and DOE through the

and http://www.centercityphila.org/socc/index.php The Regional Greenspace Priorities Project: http:// www.regionalgreenplan.org/ Back to Prosperity: A Competitive Agenda for Renewing Pennsylvania: http://www.brookings.edu/repo rts/2003/12metropolitanpolicy_pennsylvania.aspx

Livable Communities principles will be enough to help “get past our largely American habit of paying more attention to process than to outcomes.” “A fair outcome is an outcome that arises from a fair process and we are all very comfortable with that,” Hughes said, “but I think American metropolitan settlements reveal that there are real limits to playing it that way and it is very easy to avoid the [equity] outcomes many of us say we want.” Hughes was optimistic that at least one of the principles—targeting investment on existing infrastructure—approached a prescriptive equitable outcome rather than just promoting a better process. He also noted that one of the opportunities of a design framework that the charrette supported is that it is hard to avoid outcome-driven thinking. Hughes’ second main point was that rising global energy prices are “transforming our inherited liabilities into appreciating assets.” Cities contain within them value that can be unlocked through policy changes— values, such as: • Walkable street systems • Potential for locally distributed alternative energy sources • Potential for converting municipal waste as an energy source • Potential for conservation and energy efficiency by extracting energy efficiencies out of wasteful buildings What does this mean for the city and the region? Through greater efficiencies in how Philadelphia generates and distributes energy, Philadelphia can brand itself as a strategic manager of energy and a

PRESENTATIONS — JULY 28 Mark Alan Hughes, former director, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability Hughes began by asking charrette participants to carry three questions with them as they began their work: 1) How do we achieve equitable outcomes, not just equitable processes, in the infrastructure debate? 2) Who pays for and implements new infrastructure? Hughes said that many sustainable infrastructure projects have been demonstrated to be self-financing, but few to be self-implementing. 3) What is the difference between built vs. managed infrastructure, and why should the latter, in Hughes’ opinion, be this region’s focus? In answering the first question, Hughes argued that while the charrette may create discussions about types of infrastructure—energy, natural systems, transportation and so on—what we are ultimately talking about is the “metropolitan settlement structure and the social choices and tensions that get reflected in that settlement structure.” Hughes added, “American metros could not be better designed to allow people to avoid the social liability of people who are poorer than them.”

103

104

Appendix

relatively low-cost place to do business and to live. Energy competitiveness can become a new line in the pro forma for business and development. This shift encourages new ways of thinking about costs and benefits of infrastructure, like stormwater, which can justify initial cost premiums when a wider set of benefits are internalized in the calculations. Looking into the future, Hughes foresees high investment potential in cities like Philadelphia. “If it comes to pass, a commodified carbonreduction market will become the most pro-urban organizing device for policy formation in a generation. That market is going to seek out the lowest-cost reduction points in places like Philadelphia because we can get the most reduction in energy out of our buildings and provide transportation alternatives to residents and commuters at the least cost. Dense cities, therefore, become the Saudi Arabia of energy conservation—if we create a carbon market,” said Hughes. Paul Levy, executive director, Center City District Paul Levy began his talk by identifying the following strengths of the city and region: • Fifth largest metro • Located midway along the Northeast Corridor • 15-minute drive or 27-minute rail connection to airport • Connected to the best high-speed rail line in the nation • Accessed by three interstate highways • 360-degree labor market • 70 percent of downtown office workers take transit—comparable to New York City and San Francisco

• Abundance of cultural offerings • 9-5 downtown has been turned into a vibrant evening economy that supports both residents and workers • Third largest downtown residential population behind New York City and Chicago • Very favorable cost of living: to enjoy same lifestyle in New York City, would need to earn 73 percent more in salary than in Philadelphia. • 40 percent of downtown residents walk to work, highest nationally • Labor markets accessible by transit to the core Levy then turned his attention to some of the barriers that keep the city from improving. Despite the strengths listed above (and national trends), private sector jobs have declined steadily since the 1970s. “This is a set of stairs that is leading to oblivion, and until we change this pattern we are not going to change the success of the city and the region,” Levy said. This job loss is part of the long history of deindustrialization. Unlike Pittsburgh, which suddenly lost one industry, Philadelphia has witnessed a gradual decline of multiple industries. “For better or worse this process is over,” asserted Levy, “and it leaves us with a terrible legacy of deterioration and abandonment.” Philadelphia has the highest rate of poverty (24 percent) among major cities on the East Coast and very low levels of educational attainment. A positive note is the region’s higher percentage of employment in eds and meds than East Coast competitors shielded Greater Philadelphia from the effects of the recent economic collapse because those

Appendix

industries are less affected by the stock market. Philadelphia mirrors East Coast cities in hospitality and entertainment jobs, but not in business and professional services. It lags behind in minority and new business formation. Office space in the central business district has declined to 28 percent of the region, which makes Philadelphia look more like an Atlanta than a Chicago. “Locating jobs beyond the reach of transit is a continual undermining of the stability of residential neighborhoods—a continual path toward poverty for many people,” Levy said. Wage tax and gross receipts tax structure also negatively affects businesses locating within city limits and deters minority and small business formation. Recommendations for changing the job loss trend: • Restore across-the-board tax reductions plan. • Lift suspension of the Business Privilege Tax reduction as soon as possible. Shift the tax burden from mobile to fixed assets—land and property, not jobs and businesses. • Reduce the cost of government and appetite for taxes. • Invest in infrastructure improvements. Currently, there are several infrastructure agendas competing against each other for political and actual capital. Those agendas include: • Expanding runway capacity at the airport. • Capitalizing on interest in high-speed rail. • Building a Roosevelt Boulevard transit line. • Addressing traffic on the Schuylkill Expressway. • Developing a public waterfront on the Central Delaware.

• Extending the Broad Street Line to the Navy Yard. • Bringing PATCO lines along Delaware waterfront. • Assessing enhanced UPenn transportation connections. • Expanding development along west Market Street and JFK Boulevard in Center City. Top priority, according to Levy, is to get existing systems in a state of good repair. Levy concluded by saying that if there was new funding to invest in infrastructure, it should adhere to a set of criteria to prioritize investment. Levy offered these criteria: • Invest to achieve sustainability objectives. • Invest to advance the 21st-century economy. • Invest to expand existing job centers. • While only 6 percent of city residents live in University and Center City, those centers represent 40 percent of the city’s jobs. Levy said, “What voters say and what the economy needs is not always the same.” • Invest in the next economy—seek out NIH funding. • Invest in industries with entry-level jobs as a strategy for poverty reduction. • Invest where passengers are located. • Focus on leftover areas from the industrial age. • Invest in areas that will yield highest tax return to the city.

105

Organizing Group Laurie Actman, Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office of Sustainability/ Metropolitan Caucus Eugenie Birch, Penn Institute for Urban Research Andrew Goodman, PennPraxis Alan Greenberger, Acting Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development Shawn McCaney, William Penn Foundation Amy Montgomery, Penn Institute for Urban Research Harris Steinberg, PennPraxis Marilyn Jordan Taylor, PennDesign Susan Wachter, Penn Institute for Urban Research

PennPraxis Staff Harris Steinberg, Executive Director Michael Greenle Bridget Keegan Andrew Goodman Jeffrey Knowles Francisco Allard Jeffrey Barg