News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-95 gap in NJ

Started by Roadman66, October 13, 2011, 01:46:25 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Roadman66

When I-95 will be designated along the NJ Turnpike extension through Florence, and merge with the mainline turnpike at exit 6, will exit renumbering be necessary up to New York? For example, the proposed 95 will have its first exit at exit 7, but shouldn't this be exit 1, since this is where 95 begins on the turnpike? Also, will extra interstate shields be installed on the highway as well as on local roads? In addition, the turnpike extension has an exit with Rt 130, which is not numbered. Could this be numbered?


Michael in Philly

Quote from: Roadman66 on October 13, 2011, 01:46:25 AM
When I-95 will be designated along the NJ Turnpike extension through Florence, and merge with the mainline turnpike at exit 6, will exit renumbering be necessary up to New York? For example, the proposed 95 will have its first exit at exit 7, but shouldn't this be exit 1, since this is where 95 begins on the turnpike? Also, will extra interstate shields be installed on the highway as well as on local roads? In addition, the turnpike extension has an exit with Rt 130, which is not numbered. Could this be numbered?

I don't see why anything needs to change (which doesn't mean it can't):  the Turnpike is already designated as I-95 from I-287 north, but Turnpike exit numbering is still used along that stretch.  And there are plenty of other places where a toll road's own exit numbering system trumps Interstate designations, the most obvious being the New York Thruway.
RIP Dad 1924-2012.

1995hoo

Officially the Florence exit is Exit 6A.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

shadyjay

The part in question that "could" (but probably won't) be changed is the free section that is NJTA-maintained from I-80 to the GWB, as those exits were mile-based from if free I-95 was built from Trenton north to I-287.  But most motorists probably assume that exit numbering is a continuation of I-80's numbers, so they'll probably remain the same.

Of course if it was up to me, I-95 would be on the entire length of the turnpike from end to end and the whole stretch from bridge to bridge (DMB to GWB) would have mile-based exits.

Michael in Philly

^^Which would mean that, because of a bunch of NIMBY's in Central New Jersey 30 years ago, the second largest city on the East Coast would lose its piece of 95, in favor of...New Jersey.

No.
RIP Dad 1924-2012.

ethanman62187

There is a plan to close the gap, but it will be completed before 2020.
I like all of this. I like va sr 28 to be an interstate highway.

jwolfer

Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 13, 2011, 03:08:37 PM
There is a plan to close the gap, but it will be completed before 2020.

This is unbelievable considering that the entire NJTP was built in 2 years

akotchi

The gap is in New Jersey, but, unfortunately, the solution is not . . .
Opinions here attributed to me are mine alone and do not reflect those of my employer or the agencies for which I am contracted to do work.

Grzrd

#8
Quote from: jwolfer on October 13, 2011, 03:24:10 PM
Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 13, 2011, 03:08:37 PM
There is a plan to close the gap, but it will be completed before 2020.
This is unbelievable considering that the entire NJTP was built in 2 years
Stage 1 of the interchange project is scheduled to be completed in 2017, which the interchange project website contends will be sufficent to consider the "gap" closed:
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/stages.htm

"Project Stage 1 includes building high-speed connections to the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Interstate 95 in Bucks County, a new mainline toll plaza, and mainline widening.  The completion of Project Stage 1, along with the redesignation of the PA and NJ Turnpikes, will make I-95 continous throughout the east coast from Florida to Maine. Construction underway through 2017. "


shadyjay

Well aware of the plans for closing the I-95 gap. 

Key words in my post was "if it was up to me".

:cool:

hbelkins

Quote from: shadyjay on October 13, 2011, 10:39:38 AM
Of course if it was up to me, I-95 would be on the entire length of the turnpike from end to end and the whole stretch from bridge to bridge (DMB to GWB) would have mile-based exits.

:thumbsup:


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Michael in Philly

Quote from: shadyjay on October 13, 2011, 05:49:20 PM
Well aware of the plans for closing the I-95 gap. 

Key words in my post was "if it was up to me".

:cool:

And the key word in my post was, "no."
RIP Dad 1924-2012.

jwolfer

Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 13, 2011, 02:14:14 PM
^^Which would mean that, because of a bunch of NIMBY's in Central New Jersey 30 years ago, the second largest city on the East Coast would lose its piece of 95, in favor of...New Jersey

No.

Those same people are now bitching and moaning about the traffic on US 1, US 206 and Route 31.  the latter 2 being mostly 2 lane facilities overtaxed by suburban development that they were trying to prevent.  Imagine if I-95 between Baltimore and Washington were canceled, the overload of Balto-Wash Tpk and US 1

shadyjay

Any reason why construction of a brand new interchange between I-95 and the PA Turnpike was chosen vs utilization of an existing interchange (I-95 Exit 40) and a right-of-way essentially intact to the turnpike?   See:  http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=40.119073,-74.882555&spn=0.022283,0.061798&t=h&z=15&vpsrc=6 and the interchange at the bottom of the screen.

This is already where I-95 NB drops from 3 to 2 lanes and seems like it was already planned to be the connection between I-95 and the PA Turnpike.


qguy

I was on the PATP/I-95 connection project community advisory committee for many years. (So many, many years.) Using I-95 Exit 40 was one of the options that we studied.

There were actually two options from that exit. One would've built a freeway from the exit across PA 413 and extending to the PATP at Exit 358 (Delaware Valley). The connection at the PATP would've been high-speed. This option was one of the options under serious consideration back when I-95 was first constructed. It was shortlisted, in fact. This is one reason why Exit 40 is a high-speed interchange. (This was in fact one segment of one of the original alignment alternatives for I-95 itself when it was being planned back in the 1950s and 60s. The freeway would've connected to what is now the southern end of the freeway section of US 13 where it ends at Levittown Pkwy. The I-95 designation would've continued north to the current US 1 freeway, then north along US 1 through Trenton. It was rejected for having no growth--widening--potential through Trenton.But I digress.)

This first option was dismissed early on (by the early 1990s) because it would've crossed and decimated the Silver Lake Nature Center. Big no-no. No one, even the highway engineers, wanted that anyway, even if they were allowed.

The second option from that exit would've built a freeway across PA 413, then curve due north to connect with the PATP at a semi-directional Y-type interchange. This ended up being knocked out of contention because it would've had serious impacts to another local park. Federal law prohibits this unless unless there is no other engineering solution at all. This option also wiped out an entire neighborhood.

There were also serious design problems with distance between exits and weaving and what-not between the main line of I-95 and what would've been the PA 413 exit on the freeway connector. It was just a mess from various angles and didn't offer much cost savings compared to other options.

The various interchange options developed at the point of crossing ended up providing the best means of addressing the project need (high-speed connection), with the least number of residential and business displacements, at a cost not far from most of the other options.

After the alternatives were narrowed down to the point of crossing, it was just a matter of screening the various types of ramp configuations (this flyover vs. that loop vs. that flyover and this loop--you get the picture) which would provide the biggest bang for the buck.

The process I've just described took approximately 12 years. Arrgh!

And that was just getting to the end of the initial design. It took from about 2003 until now to get through final design for just the inital construction stages.

Apologies for the long post, but it was a long 12 years.  :ded:

Hot Rod Hootenanny

So what was the biggest impediment to getting the study finished? Feds, state, neighborhood assoc., outside group interests, other?
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

broadhurst04

Which would mean that, because of a bunch of NIMBY's in Central New Jersey 30 years ago, the second largest city on the East Coast would lose its piece of 95, in favor of...New Jersey.

No.

Why is it so important that the freeway passing through Philadelphia carry the I-95 designation? The road would look and drive exactly the same if it were an Interstate spur, US 1, or a PA route. Does New York City suffer economically because there are no Interstates crossing Manhattan? Hardly. Maybe Philly's ego would have been bruised a bit if 95 had been routed up the NJ Turnpike, but I hardly think it would have destroyed the city's importance or stature.

Michael in Philly

I'm serious.  Is 95 meant to go from Miami to Houlton by the best route possible, or to connect Miami to Jacksonville, Jacksonville to Savannah-ish, Savannah to Richmond, etc.?  It would be anomalous if the two largest cities on the East Coast didn't have a single-Interstate connection, given that they're 90 miles apart.  (In fact, until the gap is fixed, it is anomalous.)  We'd also lose our single-Interstate connection to Baltimore, the first big city in the other direction.  Why does only New York matter to everyone?  (Like whatever fricking Marylander decided having New York as the single control destination north of Baltimore was appropriate.)

But tell you what:  we'll remove 95 from Pennsylvania and call it, say, 695.  At the same time, we'll incorporate what is now I-12 into I-10 and put New Orleans on 410.  We'll also - an example that comes to mind as I'm currently in the northern suburbs of Chicago, a few miles off the Tristate - keep 90 and 94 together from Portage, Ind., to Madison.  We'll do something else for Milwaukee.  Everyone in Milwaukee and New Orleans like that idea?
RIP Dad 1924-2012.

NE2

Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 16, 2011, 08:49:22 AM
I'm serious.  Is 95 meant to go from Miami to Houlton by the best route possible, or to connect Miami to Jacksonville, Jacksonville to Savannah-ish, Savannah to Richmond, etc.?
Playing devil's advocate, it could go from Miami to Tampa to Atlanta to Charlotte to Raleigh to Richmond :)

But seriously, I don't give a shit as long as (a) control cities are sensical and (b) the route can be followed, even if it's not the shortest route. Unfortunately I-95 currenly fails the latter; a quick fix would be to already do the planned renumbering and sign PA 413-US 13 as the temporary route for I-95 traffic.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Michael in Philly

We could set a precedent and call the bypass of Philadelphia 95A.  Or remove the I-97 designation from the single county it's in and use it.
We could even do an E and W thing like in Minneapolis-Saint Paul.
RIP Dad 1924-2012.

Michael in Philly

^^Replying to myself because I covered about 300 miles - Mundelein, Ill. - Milwaukee - Madison - Rockford - Mundelein since that post.  Southern Wisconsin is chock full of non-limited-access routes marked as "Alternate Interstate X."  Some are frontage roads, some run farther afield.  Complete with blue "Alternate" banners.  Saw one in Illinois - somewhere between Belvidere and Marengo - as well.  I take it these serve a function like Pennsylvania's color-coded detours. 

But it occurred to me we could call the currently-unnumbered part of the New Jersey Turnpike "Alternate I-95"    :D
RIP Dad 1924-2012.

qguy

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 15, 2011, 08:09:22 PM
So what was the biggest impediment to getting the study finished? Feds, state, neighborhood assoc., outside group interests, other?

Back in the 60s & 70s, the PA Turnpike Commission (PTC) and PennDOT planned to build a simple double-trumpet connection between the two highways (in the NW quadrant of the point of crossing). in 1981 or so (I forget exactly when), then-Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) convinced Congress to delist the planned segment of I-95 between Trenton and New Brunswick. The legislation 1) prohibited NJDOT (or anyone else) from constructing I-95 through that area, and 2) mandated construction of a high-speed connection between the PATP and I-95 in PA somewhere at or near the point of crossing, the exact configuration of which to be decided by the stakeholders, with I-95 being re-routed at the interchange along the PA & NJ Turnpikes.

This forced the PTC and PennDOT to scrap all plans and start over again. Because building a direct connection between the two highways would radically change driving patterns throughout the surrounding area, there turned out to be a huge number of stakeholders to consider.

Since the local aterial system currently supports and filters the traffic which moves from one highway to the other, the direct connection would redistribute noise and emissions. Not to mention residential and business takes in whatever location was built upon. You had environmental considerations, housing considerations, neighborhood considerations, traffic pattern considerations, this, that, and the other considerations. You name it. All represented by multiple stakeholders, all of which needed to be satisfied in one way or another.

The design team actually did an admirable job of working with the locals to hammer out a configuration which satisfied the most number of stakeholders in the greatest possible way. They devised a configuation which nearly everyone agrees will be OK to live with (froma local liveability standpoint) for a long, long time.

But getting all those stakeholders in line through iteration after iteration of design (responding to this input and that input) is what took so long. It was like herding cats. Or what in the military we used to call a "goat rope."

An exccedingly good design, however, was the end result, IMHO.


hbelkins

Good ol' Bill Bradley. He was a really good basketball player. Not so good of a senator.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

mgk920

At the rate things are going, US 1 between I-295 and I-287 will ultimately become (de facto) "I-95"....

:spin:

Mike

Grzrd

Quote from: qguy on October 17, 2011, 09:54:00 AM
in 1981 or so (I forget exactly when), then-Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) convinced Congress to delist the planned segment of I-95 between Trenton and New Brunswick.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2011, 10:52:08 AM
Good ol' Bill Bradley. He was a really good basketball player.
Bradley played his college ball at Princeton, which coincidentally was in the path of the planned route for I-95.



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.