Upload
pennpraxis
View
222
Download
7
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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 charrette brought together experts and thought-leaders 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.
Citation preview
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, Mayors 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 AirportDay 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 July 28
5
19
37
95
3 6 12 18mi
ExEcUTIvE SUmmARy 5
The 2009 Philadelphia Regional Infrastructure
Charrette brought together experts and thought-leaders
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.
The charrette proceedings offer a response to the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Obama administrations 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 conversationone 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 Commissions long-range plan for
6 Executive Summary
Chester
Montgomery
Bucks
Mercer
Delaware
Burlington
Gloucester
Philadelphia
Camden
New Castle
140 Miles to DC
95 Miles to NYC
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
PennPraxis/Planning Collective
7
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.
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
Philadelphiaits railroads, natural systems, and
culturemust advance to meet 21st century
challenges if the region is to find and build upon its
competitive advantage in the global economy.
DEfININg THE REgIONFor 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 CastleThis 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
existing transit and open space systems.
ORgANIzINg pRINcIplESAt 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
Executive Summary
decrease household transportation costs, reduce our
nations 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 communitiesthrough such
strategies as transit-oriented, mixed-use development
and land recyclingto 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
neighborhoodsrural, urban or suburban.
pROcESS OvERvIEwThe 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.
July 27: Economic Geography of Greater
Philadelphia
Ryan Sweet, senior economist from Moodys 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
8 Executive Summary
PennPraxis/Planning Collective
US Census, 2000;Wharton Business Analyst, 2008
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
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.
9Philadelphia. 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 cONcEpTSThe 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
Executive Summary
RIGHT: Members of the Citywide Systems group discuss priority transportation and open space systems projects within Philadelphia that would have immediate regional impact.
liabilities and the way we make choices about limited
infrastructure investment dollars. All will take regional 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
this metropolitan moment to plan and build the
infrastructure that will enhance its economic
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
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.
10 Executive Summary
11
BELOW: A map digitized after the
charrette that shows the Airport groups 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.
removal, planning across political boundaries, and
long-term stewardship strategies for contaminated
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:
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
Philadelphia to the airport is an example of the type of
priority-driven, coordinated regional infrastructure
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 regions economic potential. The work in the Airport and Central Schuylkill groups demonstrated that there are many options for possible connections,
Executive Summary
12
BELOW: A sketch drawn by charrette participants Mami Hara of WRT and David Schaaf of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission outlining the regions riparian corridors and headwaters.
and the relative proximity of Philadelphias regional work centers to the airport is a unique competitive 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 Philadelphias 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.
NATURAl SySTEmS INTEgRATION
Well-planned and successful natural systems can
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
112
3
2
3
PEDESTRIAN CONECTIONS
CENTENNIAL DISTRICT
DELAWARE WATERFRONT
NORTH BROADcenter city to temple university
TRAIL + BIKE + GREEN STREETS
NEW TRANSIT
NEW+RE-OPENEDSTATIONS
WATER TAXI
3 6 12 18 mi
13
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.
individual systems within the larger whole. These
systems could be aligned with watersheds, rights-of-
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.
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
large-scale investments are integrated and aligned
across regional boundaries. One needs only look to the
traditional American parkway system for the
multipurpose potential of integrated infrastructure.
Efficiencies can be created by the seemingly 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 regions 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, dont fill gaps like potholes. Opportunities for further study:
As the HUD-DOT-EPA principles suggest, coordination between housing and transportation
Executive Summary
14
Philadelphia CountyGirard Pt. Bridge Repair$66,000,000
Bucks CountyStoopville Rd Improvements$1,700,000
Montgomery CountyI-476 Roadway Reconstruction$90,000,000
Chester CountyChester Valley Trail Phase I$5,208,414
Chester CountyUS 30 Exton Bypass$6,000,000
Philadelphia CountyCenter City Resurfacing$6,471,000
New Castle CountyNewark Toll PlazaReconstruction$43,000,000
Camden and Gloucester CountiesI-295 Rehabilitation$84,000,000
Montgomery CountyI-76 O-ramp Improvement$14,500,000
Chester CountyState St Bridge Removal$1,100,000 Chester County
Tredyrin Twp SidewalksPhase I$2,800,000
< $5 M
$5-10 M
$10-25 M
>$25 M
PennPraxis/Planning CollectivePennDOT, 2009; NJDOT, 2009
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
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 Amtraks 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.
ERASE THE BOUNDARIES THAT DIvIDE US pOlITIcAlly
On the first night of the workshop, Barry Seymour, the executive director of the Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission, urged participants to erase the
regions 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 Philadelphias smart future will mean acknowledging the tensions
and tradeoffs that come with regional change. The
citys 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
Executive Summary
15
benchmarks. This process would emphasize systemic
thinking, would avoid focusing on one-off individual
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. Philadelphias 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.
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
about improvements are made by confederations of
competing local governments or according to trend-
based computer models.
As suggested in DVRPCs 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 todays shifting landscape.
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
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.
---
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.
PennDesign is dedicated to improving the quality of life through the design and preservation of artworks,
buildings, landscapes, cities, and regions. The
Schools 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 masters 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.
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
16 Executive Summary
17
expertise and professional design knowledge, including
the award-winning A Civic Vision for the Central
Delaware, Penns Landing Design forums, and Re-Envisioning the Kimmel Center through Civic
Engagement and Design.
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 Penns 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 childrens futures, and deepen connections
to nature and community. In partnership with others,
the Foundation works to advance a vital, just, and
caring community.
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 Vice-President 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.
Executive Summary
Regional Rail to Shelly
Rail Transit to Glassboro
Atlantic City Line/River LineTransfer Station
WaterfrontLight Rail
Rt. 36 to Eastwick
Rt. 100 to King of Prussia Mall
Regional Rail to Wawa
Regional Rail to Atglen
Bus Rapid Transiton US 1
SETTINg THE STAgE 19
Philadelphia Successfully Reinvents Itself
Industry Location quotient Employment growth Multiplier*average 1999 to 2008 average annualized growth, 1999-2008
Financial activities 1.32 0.22Insurance Carriers and Related Activities 1.37 -0.40 2.5Credit Intermediation and Related Activities 1.41 -0.49 2.2
Professional and business services 1.16 1.33Legal services 1.59 1.44 1.9
Education and healthcare 1.41 1.97Hospitals 1.46 0.74 1.8Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools 2.42 1.26 1.5
Manufacturing 0.80 -3.10 3.2IT using 1.26 0.47
Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing 3.33 -0.53 5.4
*Change in employment due to a change in industry employmentSources: BLS, IMPLAN, Moody's Economy.com
But Struggles to Keep Up
Average annualized growth, 1999 to 2008Top 100 metro areas determined by populationSource: Moody's Economy.com
Rank Metro area Employment Rank Metro area Population Rank Metro areaReal per capita income Rank Metro area
Output per worker, ths $
1 Las Vegas, NV 4.10 1 Las Vegas, NV 4.03 1 New Orleans, LA 7.46 1 New York, NY 112.092 Riverside, CA 3.36 2 Raleigh, NC 3.79 2 Oklahoma City, OK 3.41 2 Hartford, CT 111.823 Austin, TX 2.65 3 Austin, TX 3.62 3 San Jose, CA 2.59 3 San Francisco, CA 111.074 Phoenix, AZ 2.55 4 Phoenix, AZ 3.34 4 San Diego, CA 2.56 4 San Jose, CA 107.225 Orlando, FL 2.50 5 Charlotte, NC 2.98 5 Houston, TX 2.45 5 San Diego, CA 107.206 Raleigh, NC 2.46 6 Atlanta, GA 2.97 6 San Francisco, CA 2.45 6 Los Angeles, CA 105.717 Washington, DC 2.00 7 Riverside, CA 2.83 7 Baltimore, MD 2.41 7 Houston, TX 105.218 Charlotte, NC 1.94 8 Orlando, FL 2.72 8 Virginia Beach, VA 2.26 8 Washington, DC 100.599 San Antonio, TX 1.93 9 Dallas, TX 2.50 9 Washington, DC 2.24 9 Sacramento, CA 97.43
10 Sacramento, CA 1.91 10 Houston, TX 2.35 10 Boston, MA 2.19 10 Seattle, WA 97.2511 Salt Lake City, UT 1.88 11 Tucson, AZ 2.21 11 Birmingham, AL 2.17 11 Boston, MA 97.2112 Houston, TX 1.86 12 San Antonio, TX 2.05 12 Pittsburgh, PA 2.09 12 Denver, CO 93.4213 Tucson, AZ 1.75 13 Nashville, TN 2.01 13 Miami, FL 2.04 13 Buffalo, NY 93.1214 San Diego, CA 1.64 14 Sacramento, CA 1.99 14 Providence, RI 2.03 14 Dallas, TX 92.6015 Jacksonville, FL 1.60 15 Denver, CO 1.85 15 New York, NY 1.91 15 Philadelphia, PA 91.7316 Dallas, TX 1.54 16 Jacksonville, FL 1.83 16 Seattle, WA 1.89 16 Rochester, NY 91.5117 Miami, FL 1.46 17 Salt Lake City, UT 1.67 17 Philadelphia, PA 1.88 17 New Orleans, LA 91.2718 Atlanta, GA 1.34 18 Portland, OR 1.64 18 Los Angeles, CA 1.81 18 Riverside, CA 91.2119 Nashville, TN 1.28 19 Tampa, FL 1.57 19 San Antonio, TX 1.80 19 Chicago, IL 90.5120 Indianapolis, IN 1.27 20 Indianapolis, IN 1.47 20 Hartford, CT 1.70 20 Charlotte, NC 89.2321 Oklahoma City, OK 1.23 21 Washington, DC 1.46 21 Jacksonville, FL 1.68 21 Virginia Beach, VA 89.1222 Seattle, WA 1.19 22 Richmond, VA 1.36 22 Salt Lake City, UT 1.67 22 Atlanta, GA 88.4923 Tampa, FL 1.19 23 Columbus, OH 1.18 23 Richmond, VA 1.65 23 Richmond, VA 86.7624 Richmond, VA 1.17 24 Seattle, WA 1.17 24 Denver, CO 1.64 24 Portland, OR 85.4325 Denver, CO 1.13 25 Oklahoma City, OK 1.15 25 Tucson, AZ 1.53 25 Detroit, MI 85.2732 Philadelphia, PA 0.61 45 Philadelphia, PA 0.34
U.S. average 0.86 U.S. average 0.98 U.S. average 1.57 U.S. average 86.38
BELOW: Charts from Ryan Sweets presentation show industry location quotients as well as how Greater Philadelphia compares to other regions in terms of population, employment and income.
EcONOmIcS Of THE REgIONA 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 Moodys 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 Philadelphias 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 citys 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,
Philadelphias crime rate has remained relatively constant. Since 2000, Philadelphias poverty rate
21Setting the Stage
22
1
76
202422
1
276
1
130
1
1
1
476
95
202
95
95
495
70
30
55
NJT295
42
95
NJT
95
195
38
676
!!!!!! !
!!!! !
!! !! !!!!!
!!!!! !!!
!!! !!!
! !!!!!
!!! !!
!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!
!!
! !!!!! !! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!
!! !!!!
!!!! !!
!!!!
!!!!!
!!! !! !! !!
!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!
!! !!!!!
!!!!!!! !!! ! !!
!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!! !!!
!! !!!! !!!!!
!! !!!!!!!! !!! !!
!!! !! !!!!
!!!!!
!!! !!!
!! !
! !!!! !!!!! !!!!!
!!
!!
!
!! !!
! !!!!!
!!
!
Biotech/Pharmaceuticals (81)
Medical Equipment Manufacturing (76)
Laboratories (74)
Life Science & Engineering Research (30)
Highways 1
PennPraxis/Planning Collective
Select Greater Philadelphia
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
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.
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 regions economy.Sweet also highlighted two areas that show
promise in keeping Greater Philadelphia competitive
with peer East Coast cities. Philadelphias share of port activity as a percentage of all U.S. trade was
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.
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 regions leading economic drivershigher education and the
life sciences.
More aggressively leveraging Philadelphias central location on the Northeast Corridor, which
Setting the Stage
23
BELOW: Former sustainability director
and current PennDesign Distinguished Senior
Fellow Mark Alan Hughes discusses
Greater Philadelphias role in the green
economy.
places it at an advantage to tap financial and
regulatory opportunities in New York and Washington.
Thinking and acting regionally. The Metropolitan Caucus is a first step in breaking down political
barriers that inhibit the regions 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.
OvERvIEw Of THE REgIONFor 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 Philadelphias MSA. Other definitions of the Philadelphia region include:
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission:
nine counties (does not include New Castle County, Del.)
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.
Before the charrette group work began, two speakers, Paul Levy and Mark Alan Hughes, elaborated on the regions strengths and weaknesses, many of which were discussed by the panel the night before.
Levy, executive director of Center City District,
Setting the Stage
24
said that finding ways to prioritize infrastructure
investments is critical to seeing investments achieve
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 neighborhoodsa 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 Mayors Office of Sustainability, Mark Alan Hughes. Hughes asserts that as the demand for energy conservation
increases, Philadelphias 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
of reducing their energy consumption. Additionally, value will be created by thinking of new forms of
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 energy-shed, 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
Chester
Montgomery
Bucks
Mercer
Delaware
Burlington
Gloucester
Philadelphia
Camden
New Castle
140 Miles to DC
95 Miles to NYC
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
PennPraxis/Planning CollectiveABOVE: This map shows the tristate, 10-county area defined as Greater Philadelphia for the charrette.
25Setting the Stage
New York8,739,345
Washington4,489,955
Philadelphia3,968,278
500,000
1,000,000
5,000,000
10,000,000
0 7.5 15 30 40Miles m
PennPraxis/Planning CollectiveAmtrak, 2008
ABOVE: This map shows the relative number of passenger boardings and landings at each major Amtrak station along the Northeast Corridor. Philadelphias 30th Street Station is the third-largest passenger hub, topped only by the nations economic (New York) and political (Washington, D.C.) capitals.
26 Setting the Stage
NY-NJ157,202,043
Philadelphia35,148,631
Marcus Hook24,253,826
Wilmington4,132,428 New Castle
7,026,474
Baltimore41,250,672
Paulsboro37,984,437
Greater Philadelphia Total115,452,689
Camden6,906,893
0 7.5 15 30 40Miles m
PennPraxis/Planning CollectiveSelect Greater Philadelphia
4,000,000
8,000,000
40,000,000
80,000,000
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 regions 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.
27Setting the Stage
PennPraxis/Planning Collective
US Census, 2000;Wharton Business Analyst, 2008
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
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.
28 Setting the Stage
PennPraxis/Planning Collective
US Census, 2000;Wharton Business Analyst, 2008
0 1 2 3 40.5Miles m
ABOVE: This map uses dot density 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.
29Setting the Stage
Chester
Montgomery
Bucks
Mercer
Delaware
Burlington
Gloucester
Philadelphia
Camden
New Castle
PennPraxis/Planning Collective
U.S. Census, 2000; Wharton BusinessAnalyst, 2008
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
Census tracts with more than 12 households per acre (LEED-ND standard for transit)
Census tracts with more than 50 jobs per acre
Census tracts that meet both housing and employment concentration thresholds
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.
30 Setting the Stage
Center City
Chestnut Hill
UniversityCity
TempleUniversity
Philadelphia International
Airport
Navy Yard
N.E. Philadelphia Airport
Manayunk
East Falls
SportsComplex
City Line Avenue
Kensington/Port Richmond
52nd St.Corridor
TempleMedicine
Olney/Einstein HospitalGermantown
Oxford Circle/Roosevelt Mall
PennPraxis/Planning Collective
U.S. Census, 2000; Wharton BusinessAnalyst, 2008
0 1 2 3 40.5Miles m
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
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.
31Setting the Stage
PennPraxis/Planning Collective
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2008
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
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.
32 Setting the Stage
Regional Rail to Shelly
Rail Transit to Glassboro
Atlantic City Line/River LineTransfer Station
WaterfrontLight Rail
Rt. 36 to Eastwick
Rt. 100 to King of Prussia Mall
Regional Rail to Wawa
Regional Rail to Atglen
Bus Rapid Transiton US 1
PennPraxis/Planning Collective
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
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.
33Setting the Stage
Philadelphia CountyGirard Pt. Bridge Repair$66,000,000
Bucks CountyStoopville Rd Improvements$1,700,000
Montgomery CountyI-476 Roadway Reconstruction$90,000,000
Chester CountyChester Valley Trail Phase I$5,208,414
Chester CountyUS 30 Exton Bypass$6,000,000
Philadelphia CountyCenter City Resurfacing$6,471,000
New Castle CountyNewark Toll PlazaReconstruction$43,000,000
Camden and Gloucester CountiesI-295 Rehabilitation$84,000,000
Montgomery CountyI-76 O-ramp Improvement$14,500,000
Chester CountyState St Bridge Removal$1,100,000 Chester County
Tredyrin Twp SidewalksPhase I$2,800,000
< $5 M
$5-10 M
$10-25 M
>$25 M
PennPraxis/Planning CollectivePennDOT, 2009; NJDOT, 2009
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
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.
34 Setting the Stage
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.
35Setting the Stage
PennPraxis/Planning Collective
Wharton Business Analyst, 2008
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
Passenger Rail
$0 - $600,000
$5,000,001 - $14,000,000
$3,500,001 - $5,000,000
$2,000,001 - $3,500,000
$600,001 - $2,000,000
*Mercer County data incomplete
cHARRETTE DIScOvERIES 37
39
OvERvIEwThe 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
40
BELOW: Team leader Rachel Weinberger of PennDesign (top right) divides the participants into small groups to discuss Philadelphias transportation networks.
automobile. Philadelphias 30th Street Station is the third busiest station in Amtraks network, and SEPTAs 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.
Charge
In todays world of regional choice and fast-paced travel, it can be argued that transportation access is
the key to the regions 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 regions 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 regions 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 administrations 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
PennPraxis/Planning Collective
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2008
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
41
BELOW: A map prepared for the
charrette that shows regional highway and
passenger rail networks.
principles will the new transportation system
prioritize? 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 regions transportation agenda going forward?
Can any use be made of inactive rail and underutilized freight corridors?
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
citizens of the Philadelphia region to survive without
owning a car because we do not give them the
opportunity to do so. We must plan with this goal in
mindcultivating transit-dependent citizens.
Group then members reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of the Philadelphia regions 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
41Charrette Discoveries: Day 1
42
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles m
PennPraxis/Planning Collective
Passenger: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2008; Freight: Select Greater Philadelphia, 2008; Inactive: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 1996
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).
of economic return on investment as well as quality-of-life improvements.
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.
Decision-making and funding allocation for 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 regions 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
43
BELOW: Participants Clint Randall of
Planning Collective LLC and Elaine Elbich of
PennDOT review Greater Philadelphias
highway and transit connectivity.
transportation systems?For example, is it worth increasing transit access in
order to turn King of Prussia into a mixed-use center similar to the current plan for Tysons 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 regions 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.
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
region. These stations will then become prime future
suburban activity centers. This is akin to the CityRail
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
Charrette Discoveries: Day 1
benchmarks could include:
Do the investments support the regions overall land use concept?
Do the investments reduce the regions 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?
3. Improve Transportation for Equity and
Environmental Justice
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 transit-
oriented 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
mixa 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 ridershipgenerally a more cost-
44
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.
Charrette Discoveries: Day 1
ABOVE: This map is a digitized version of the Regional Transportation groups 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.
45Charrette Discoveries: Day 1
effective measure than constructing entirely new
transit lines. There is a significant amount of transit
infrastructure in the region that is currently
underutilized.
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 highwaysinstead 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.
This will likely require implementing funding strategies that are new for the region, such as user
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.
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.
46 Charrette Discoveries: Day 1
47
There are two systems that must be of high priority
to the Philadelphia region, as each will likely bring
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.
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 Phillys Champs lyses for transit and pedestrians. This would offer complete
Charrette Discoveries: Day 1
multimodal transportation access to an academic and
employment hub, providing total activity that one
cannot get anywhere else in the region.
Responses to HUD-DOT-EPA Principles
Since the groups main charge was to reimagine the regions transportation networks, it is clear that the ideas addressed the HUD-DOT-EPA principle for improving transportation choices. However, well-planned 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 decision-
making 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.
48
BELOW: The Natural Systems group begins the day by discussing open space and natural features as assets that must be maximized.
REgIONAl NATURAl SySTEmSAlex Krieger, Harvard University Graduate School of
Design, team leader
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 Philadelphias 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 regions future vision and identity.
Suggested Questions to Answer
How should the region strengthen existing
Charrette Discoveries: Day 1
49
natural systems, and what are the primary areas where
it should improve? 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
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 arou