Urban highways primarily function to channel commuters to-and-from the city limits. If there were less of that exchange in commuting patterns, they would not be necessary. It's not about uprooting the car infrastructure entirely, but reducing traffic to the extent where it can flow effectively without these humongous blights diving our neighborhoods, spitting pollution onto its residents, and putting everyone at risk who needs to walk past their exits.

Highways ought to encircle a city's perimeter and terminate when they enter the city limits. The rest of the way, the traffic can move at speeds safe for pedestrians. Philly actually does this much better than most other cities in the US, but we should still make sure they don't expand further - otherwise, the only outcome is more displacement and urban blight.

I don't get it, then. I've only ever worked in the city & I've always either biked or taken transit. If it's simply a matter of those types of infrastructure being improved, then it's a different discussion entirely. And yes - even if you need a vehicle for work, reducing the amount of traffic in the city will only benefit you.

It's not about giving the brunt to ordinary people like you. It's about actually implementing an equitable tax policy, where businesses aren't incentivized to center their operations way out on the edge of the metropolitan area. King of Prussia has a population of 22k yet it employs 60k jobs - mostly tech, media, and admin in the white collar sphere, nothing that couldn't be done in an ordinary hi-rise here in the city. It's insane that's even allowed.

Like I implied, we're a long ways from capping the highways. That's long-term, but the jobs need to move back here first, obviously.

It's always been a tax war with the suburbs & edge cities. They're still planning a rail extension to KOP. I'm not an economist, and I'm not going to argue whether the wage tax or the business taxes in Philly need to be cut to compete with the burbs, but I will say that the way these municipalities encourage businesses to locate their operations miles and miles from our population centers is appalling.

But one thing that I can speak with certainty of, is that the greater the professional labor pool there is within the city limits, the more employers will be incentivized to take advantage of it and seek more competitive candidates by relocating to the city. That can only come with continual investment in the city, regardless of the barriers.

I don't get why Philly people are so deprecating about this place. This city's seen such persistent development & job growth over the past decade, yet people still want to act like it's destined to stay in the gutter. It's weird.

...we're both cities. Very similar ones, for that matter. We both need housing. We both need less cluttered streets and traffic jams.

It's just a counterpoint to their suggestion that rich people will naturally want a car. I don't want Philly to be Manhattan either, trust me, that place is snooty, abrasive, and claustrophobic, but Philly can still be Philly with less of a car culture.

It's absolutely tangible. Only 22% of households in Manhattan own a car, and it's one of the richest places in the country.

What's the solution? Further integrated cycling & transit networks, for one. If the MFL were even slightly cleaned up it would alleviate this significantly. If it didn't feel like a death trap biking through NoLibs down to Old City through the 95/676 interchange, way way more people would take up cycling.

It's an opportunity for car rental companies to market towards people that only desire occasional use of a car, and would rather sell their personal vehicle due to the hassle.

The long-term solution is to de-incentivize car commuting in NE Philly entirely by capping or reducing the capacity for 95, but we're a long ways away from that being a politically popular suggestion.