News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

95revive

Started by Roadsguy, July 01, 2012, 09:42:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Roadsguy

Assuming there's no thread already for this that got buried...

I guess this'll be the discussion thread for 95revive in PA.

First question: Why, oh WHY are they not three-laning it through the Squid? http://maps.google.com/?ll=39.867061,-75.339775&spn=0.010112,0.013797&t=m&z=16
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.


Alps

I wish they'd three-lane I-476 north of there...

Roadsguy

Well, they have intentions of doing it. Most of the bridges were built wide enough for three lanes, and all the overpasses are long enough. PennDOT did that on purpose. (What they should've done is built it all six lanes wide, pavement and all, but only striped for four. Then they won't get in trouble since it'd be four lanes. :bigass:)
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

Compulov

It's a bit north of the area that 95revive is targeting right now, but how about some love for Bucks County? There's already plans to widen 95 from Scudders Falls to PA-332 as part of the bridge project, but it really should be three lanes all the way down to Bristol. The website makes reference to I-95/US 1 interchange improvements, and that's something I'm all for. The weaving at that interchange in the evening is awful. So you end up with everyone in the left lane, including people who really shouldn't be there. Another lane for through traffic and perhaps a c/d setup would be nice. Unfortunately they also have the target date listed as "prior to 2025", *sigh*.

Roadsguy

#4
They will six-lane it down to Bristol.

What they should also do is eight-lane it up to Woodhaven. Far more traffic gets off at Woodhaven (a steady stream of two lanes!) than at Academy, though Academy would also have gone to another expressway like Woodhaven (the Ten Mile Loop).

EDIT: Oops, my mistake. You meant that you wish they'd six-lane it from Scudders Falls down to Bristol. I thought you meant from the Turnpike to Bristol. According to my father (qguy, the guy who pays my ever-increasing food bill), there are no plans to do so.
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

PHLBOS

My understanding is that I-95 will be widened to 6 lanes from Bristol (Exit 40/PA 413) northward to the proposed connection with the PA Turnpike/I-276.  From there to PA 332, I-95 (future I-195) will likely remain as a 4-laner.

As far as the opening comment regarding the mainline I-95 ramps through the I-476 interchange; that should have been 6-lanes from the get-go (I agree).  My guess as towards why it wasn't built that way in the first place was probably due to either land aquisition issues particularly along the southeastern end of the interchange or PennDOT grossly miscalculating estimated traffic volumes.

A similar ramping mistake was made in Boston back in the 1950s, when the original Central Artery/North Area split interchange (I-93/US 1 North, originally I-95/I-93) was built.  That interchange also consisted of 4-lane ramps going through the interchange for 6-to-8 (for I-93 North) lane wide roads.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Compulov

Quote from: Roadsguy on July 02, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
EDIT: Oops, my mistake. You meant that you wish they'd six-lane it from Scudders Falls down to Bristol. I thought you meant from the Turnpike to Bristol. According to my father (qguy, the guy who pays my ever-increasing food bill), there are no plans to do so.
Actually, I meant from PA 332 to Bristol. Part of the Sudders Falls Bridge project has them widening 95 to six lanes from the bridge all the way to exit 49. Since they're going that far already, it seemed kinda stupid annoying to leave the last 9 miles of it at four lanes, especially when I think it can use the extra capacity now.

Roadsguy

Of course, the new Turnpike interchange will probably take lots of traffic off the to-be-195 part of 95.

As for the narrow part through 476, either it was only four lanes through there when it was built, and it got six-and-eight laned south and north of it later, respectively, or it was done as part of the fad of having lane drops through interchanges at the time of its construction. Hence the fact that almost none of 95 in PA is eight lanes. It's only up to six, with some really long auxiliary lanes.
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

qguy

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 05, 2012, 01:41:14 PM
My understanding is that I-95 will be widened to 6 lanes from Bristol (Exit 40/PA 413) northward to the proposed connection with the PA Turnpike/I-276.  From there to PA 332, I-95 (future I-195) will likely remain as a 4-laner.

The project website has a page with a zoomable diagram of this segment. It shows the planned lane configuration there.
www.paturnpikei95.com/construction/PlannedConstructionSectionD2F.htm

It will be two continuous lanes (in each direction) for future I-95 in both directions. Two lanes (in each direction) from future I-95 to future I-195 in both directions. The Turnpike will be widened from two to three lanes (that would be I-276 to future I-95 and vice versa). All other ramps are planned to be single-lane.

Strangely enough, the diagram shows that a third lane is not planned to be added to northbound I-95 between the PA 413 exit ramp (exit 40) and the future I-95 ramps (to the eastbound Turnpike). In other words, the northbound ramp configuration for future I-95 will be 3 to exit 40, then 2 continuing through the interchange, then 3 again on the main line of the Turnpike.

In other, other, words, PennDOT will be creating another brand-new major lane-drop situation, a two-lane bottleneck in the middle of a three-lane throughway.

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 05, 2012, 01:41:14 PM
As far as the opening comment regarding the mainline I-95 ramps through the I-476 interchange; that should have been 6-lanes from the get-go (I agree).  My guess as towards why it wasn't built that way in the first place was probably due to either land aquisition issues particularly along the southeastern end of the interchange or PennDOT grossly miscalculating estimated traffic volumes.

PennDOT frequently constructed major interchanges with lane drops. On I-95 alone, there is Girard Ave. (exit 23), Betsy Ross Bridge/Aramingo Ave. (exit 27), and Cottman Ave. (exit 30). These lane drop configurations and the congestion they induce (for no good reason) are one of the major drivers of the reconstruction effort now underway (with various sections in design or construction). All of the interchange lane drop situations will be eliminated.

The only one planned to remain is the one at the I-676 interchange (exit 22). That's ironically the one place where a lane drop actually makes sense. During peak traffic times (the rushes), most traffic exits onto 676 from both directions on 95. I-95 through traffic is actually rather light. Who'da thought?

'Course there will be that new one they're planning that I mention above...   :ded:

qguy

Quote from: Roadsguy on July 05, 2012, 04:18:45 PM
...almost none of 95 in PA is eight lanes. It's only up to six, with some really long auxiliary lanes.

That's certainly one way of looking at the Delaware Expressway (especially from center city to PA 413). Six lanes with the occasional rather long auxiliary lane. Makes sense to me.

PHLBOS

Quote from: qguy on July 05, 2012, 04:34:47 PMStrangely enough, the diagram shows that a third lane is not planned to be added to northbound I-95 between the PA 413 exit ramp (exit 40) and the future I-95 ramps (to the eastbound Turnpike). In other words, the northbound ramp configuration for future I-95 will be 3 to exit 40, then 2 continuing through the interchange, then 3 again on the main line of the Turnpike.

In other, other, words, PennDOT will be creating another brand-new major lane-drop situation, a two-lane bottleneck in the middle of a three-lane throughway.
Assuming that the diagram is still true & current; that lane drop has got Bad Idea written all over it.  Is there still time to get either an addendum or change notice to correct that situation?  My understanding is that the I-95/276 interchange project is a PTC project as opposed to PennDOT.  Is it possible that the added lane along I-95 could be planned/bid as a separate PennDOT project?  If so, one would have hoped that it would be timed with the adjacent interchange project.


Quote from: qguy on July 05, 2012, 04:34:47 PMPennDOT frequently constructed major interchanges with lane drops. On I-95 alone, there is Girard Ave. (exit 23), Betsy Ross Bridge/Aramingo Ave. (exit 27), and Cottman Ave. (exit 30). These lane drop configurations and the congestion they induce (for no good reason) are one of the major drivers of the reconstruction effort now underway (with various sections in design or construction). All of the interchange lane drop situations will be eliminated.
While there is some truth to that, those are an apples & oranges comparison with respect to the I-95/476 interchange.  I-95 in those areas still has 6 lanes going through those interchanges.  Those extra lanes near those exits originally were likely never intended to be used as continuous through-lanes along mainline I-95.

The Exit 7 (I-476) interchange has 6 thru-lanes of I-95 southwest of the interchange, 8 thru-lanes of I-95 northeast of the interchange, but only 4 thru-lanes in it.  I could understand going from 8 lanes to 6 along I-95 south but 8 to 4 to 6 is just insane.  Even before I-476 opened in late 1991, when the ramps were only opened as far as MacDade Blvd., that interchange was a major bottleneck.

Quote from: qguy on July 05, 2012, 04:34:47 PM
The only one planned to remain is the one at the I-676 interchange (exit 22). That's ironically the one place where a lane drop actually makes sense. During peak traffic times (the rushes), most traffic exits onto 676 from both directions on 95. I-95 through traffic is actually rather light. Who'da thought?

'Course there will be that new one they're planning that I mention above...   :ded:
I-95 just south of I-676 is also the one area, where lofty planners and archtecture critics are salivating to get rid of all in the name of the Waterfront Access god.  If that ever happened, southbound I-95 north of that interchange would be an absolute traffic nightmare... unless I-676 was widened to handle the extra load; but that's for another thread.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Compulov

Quote from: qguy on July 05, 2012, 04:34:47 PM
Strangely enough, the diagram shows that a third lane is not planned to be added to northbound I-95 between the PA 413 exit ramp (exit 40) and the future I-95 ramps (to the eastbound Turnpike). In other words, the northbound ramp configuration for future I-95 will be 3 to exit 40, then 2 continuing through the interchange, then 3 again on the main line of the Turnpike.

In other, other, words, PennDOT will be creating another brand-new major lane-drop situation, a two-lane bottleneck in the middle of a three-lane throughway.

Is this really a new lane drop? The right lane exits onto exit 40 as it is now, so 95 already continues as 2 lanes. That exit is the boundary between the six-lane section of 95 and the four lane section. I don't drive northbound through that section during rush hour, so I don't know how bad the traffic is currently, though I agree that it will most likely become a problem area after the first set of ramps to the Turnpike is complete, as traffic will probably increase along 95 as a whole. At the very least, maybe they should widen 95 to six lanes through that interchange and drop down to four as 95 exits the Delaware Expressway at the new interchange. Presumably a lot of the "new" traffic projected in that section will be people who want to follow 95 and not the renumbered 195 past the Turnpike. Seems like a reasonable stop-gap anyway.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 05, 2012, 06:28:58 PM
I-95 just south of I-676 is also the one area, where lofty planners and archtecture critics are salivating to get rid of all in the name of the Waterfront Access god.  If that ever happened, southbound I-95 north of that interchange would be an absolute traffic nightmare... unless I-676 was widened to handle the extra load; but that's for another thread.

It's not about "access to the waterfront" or "aesthetics" or "livability" (in my opinion). 

It's about anti-highway/anti-freeway/anti-auto/anti-mobility "activism," of which this would be a huge victory for the "anti-auto vanguard" (as Professor James A. Dunn, Jr. of Rutgers University put it in his (still superb) book, Driving Forces: The Automobile, Its Enemies, and the Politics of Mobility), for up to now, all urban freeway closures and tear-downs have been "dead-end" roads that don't handle through traffic the way that I-95/Delaware Expressway does (even without the direct connection to the Pennsylvania  Turnpike, still some years away, thanks to the leisurely pace that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission does things).
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

PHLBOS

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 06, 2012, 10:17:36 AMIt's about anti-highway/anti-freeway/anti-auto/anti-mobility "activism," of which this would be a huge victory for the "anti-auto vanguard" (as Professor James A. Dunn, Jr. of Rutgers University put it in his (still superb) book, Driving Forces: The Automobile, Its Enemies, and the Politics of Mobility), for up to now, all urban freeway closures and tear-downs have been "dead-end" roads that don't handle through traffic the way that I-95/Delaware Expressway does (even without the direct connection to the Pennsylvania  Turnpike, still some years away, thanks to the leisurely pace that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission does things).
Dude, you're preaching to the choir on this one.  I, for one, have used that short stretch of I-95 that's being targeted quite frequently; especially back when I was driving to and from work in Pennsauken, NJ (from Delaware County) from 1991-1998.  On days when I needed to drive to work in Philly, I use that stretch as well.   
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Roadsguy on July 02, 2012, 10:09:57 AM
Well, they have intentions of doing it. Most of the bridges were built wide enough for three lanes, and all the overpasses are long enough. PennDOT did that on purpose. (What they should've done is built it all six lanes wide, pavement and all, but only striped for four. Then they won't get in trouble since it'd be four lanes. :bigass:)

I remember the local residents were so against 476 getting completed that PennDOT purposely designed it so it couldn't be easily widened to 6 lanes by way of new line stripping.

BTW, those same residents are the ones that quickly realized how convenient the highway could get them to work & home, so they just as quickly congested the highway.

I wished the media - the ones that helped the protesters of  this highway get their message across - would go back to those same people a few years later and get their opinion of the highway.  I'd bet a number of them will complain about all the congestion...as if it's only people from outside the local area causing all the issues.

qguy

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2012, 02:26:38 PMI remember the local residents were so against 476 getting completed that PennDOT purposely designed it so it couldn't be easily widened to 6 lanes by way of new line stripping.

PennDOT was actually pretty savvy about this one. They designed and constructed most of the bridges (which, relatively speaking, is the expensive stuff) so that they're wide enough that restriping is just about the only thing to be done to widen them to 3 lanes. Widening will be not much more than adding the third lane in the non-bridge areas. All in all, it won't even be as difficult as the current widening project on US 202 just north of US 30 (or the previous widening project on US 202 between I-76 and the current project).

The bottom line is that it won't be as difficult or expensive to widen the 4-lane portion to 6 lanes as it would be if these provisions hadn't been built in. When I worked for PennDOT I spoke with one of the design managers about that. He winked and tapped the side of his nose with his finger. That's universal (at least in America) for "Our mommas didn't raise no fools."

Quite the foresight for once. Gotta give 'em props.

PHLBOS

#16
Quote from: qguy on July 31, 2012, 04:42:29 PMThey designed and constructed most of the bridges (which, relatively speaking, is the expensive stuff) so that they're wide enough that restriping is just about the only thing to be done to widen them to 3 lanes. Widening will be not much more than adding the third lane in the non-bridge areas.
Actually, all the mainline I-476 overpasses from just north of MacDade Blvd. (Exit 1) up to and including Baltimore Pike (Exit 3) would need to have a supplemental "insert" structures built in between to north and southbound bridges to accomodate the additional 2 lanes.

I guess Swarthmore, one of the biggest critics and now probably hypocrites of the Blue Route, didn't want any 'hints' of a future widening built at the time.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

cpzilliacus

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2012, 05:51:07 PM
Quote from: qguy on July 31, 2012, 04:42:29 PMThey designed and constructed most of the bridges (which, relatively speaking, is the expensive stuff) so that they're wide enough that restriping is just about the only thing to be done to widen them to 3 lanes. Widening will be not much more than adding the third lane in the non-bridge areas.
Actually, all the mainline I-476 overpasses from just north of MacDade Blvd. (Exit 1) up to and including Baltimore Pike (Exit 3) would need to have a supplemental "insert" structures built in between to north and southbound bridges to accomodate the additional 2 lanes.

I guess Swarthmore, one of the biggest critics and now probably hypocrites of the Blue Route, didn't want any 'hints' of a future widening built at the time.

Long sections of the Capital Beltway in Maryland (all of which was originally 6 lanes when it opened in 1964) were built to accommodate widening in the median to an ultimate 8 lanes, including those insert structures you mention above.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.