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