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

NJRoadfan

I always thought to bigger flaw with the routing was the northern end. The Somerset Freeway would have dumped traffic onto I-287 which is already overcapacity. Then I-95 through traffic would have been forced through Exit 10 to connect with the NJTP. I-287 would surely would have needed to be widened substantially and Exit 10 would have needed to be upgraded, requiring condemning quite a bit of property (not much undeveloped property around there) and it would have been a mess of an interchange with US-1 right there.


qguy

Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 18, 2011, 03:37:58 PM
I always thought to bigger flaw with the routing was the northern end. The Somerset Freeway would have dumped traffic onto I-287 which is already overcapacity. Then I-95 through traffic would have been forced through Exit 10 to connect with the NJTP. I-287 would surely would have needed to be widened substantially and Exit 10 would have needed to be upgraded, requiring condemning quite a bit of property (not much undeveloped property around there) and it would have been a mess of an interchange with US-1 right there.

Certainly no argument from me.

Alps

Quote from: Roadman66 on October 18, 2011, 01:32:41 AM
Once I-95 becomes I-195 in NJ past Laurence Township, will exit 60 become redesigned? Will high speed ramps be built, instead of the current 35 mph ramps, to connect the future I-195 designation with the current one?

I also think I figured out the exit renumbering, milage based of course. All of the exits, from Ewing to Belmar will be renumbered. Start with exit 1 on the current I-95 in Ewing, and head up to 8, then exit 67 on 295 (future 195) will be exit 9, exit 65 will be 11 A-B, etc.....then onto the current 195 freeway, exit 1 will become exit 17, then....jumping to exit 16 which is Six Flags, this will be future exit 32 A-B, etc, all the way to exit 52, which is the GSP (current exit 36 in Wall Twp).

Post Merge: October 18, 2011, 18:54:52

Also, the northern terminus for 295 at exit 60...first I must say I hate the sign that has the control city of Princeton. Here is a pic: https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey200/i-295_nb_exit_060_07.jpg

I-295 does not really travel to Princeton. I mean not directly. It kind of avoids it. A better location would be Ewing or Lawrenceville. Anyway, these signs will probably be replaced. I'm guessing it will read End I-295, begin I-195 West.



Exit 60 has no plans to be upgraded - keep in mind that 195-295 isn't going to magically grow in volume when it becomes 195-195. Most of the 195 traffic is headed to the Turnpike or Trenton, as opposed to continuing into PA, and those heading into PA are likely to go south on 295 anyway to not go out of their way. It's ridiculous that 195 is getting extended instead of 295 or even a new number like 895, but no matter what it would be called, same end result. Re: exit numbers, that ties in here - if 295 were extended, only a few mileposts and exits would change. If 895 were created, nothing in NJ would change except the shields. 195 is the most costly and least sensible of the possible numbers, and given how little money NJDOT has, I can't fathom why they'd accept it.

What I hate most at the northern terminus is that I-295 is signed Exit 60 from I-195 because NJ doesn't use Exit 0. Better off just not signing it at all, then. Most people not taking NJ 29 or I-195 at this point are likely going to either US 1 or... surprise... Princeton. Ewing and Lawrenceville make no sense because no one goes there (not literally no one, but comparatively). I'd rather see New Brunswick, if anything.

akotchi

Quote from: Steve on October 18, 2011, 07:00:04 PM
It's ridiculous that 195 is getting extended instead of 295 or even a new number like 895, but no matter what it would be called, same end result. Re: exit numbers, that ties in here - if 295 were extended, only a few mileposts and exits would change. If 895 were created, nothing in NJ would change except the shields. 195 is the most costly and least sensible of the possible numbers, and given how little money NJDOT has, I can't fathom why they'd accept it.


I made that suggesttion that to the project team a few years ago, using the same reasons you cite, also noting cardinal direction issues.  Their response:  the standard "thank you for your interest."  I didn't like either option put forth so far (I-295 extension or I-195 extension).

To my knowledge, AASHTO has not approved anything yet, so there is hope for reason to prevail.
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.

Hot Rod Hootenanny

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 18, 2011, 11:08:27 AM
I think it's fair to make gratuitous remarks about every politician.  if they didn't want the criticism, they should never have left the human race.

So says he who left the human race a decade ago.
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

Don'tKnowYet

Quote from: akotchi on October 18, 2011, 07:29:05 PM
To my knowledge, AASHTO has not approved anything yet, so there is hope for reason to prevail.

The AASHTO Subcommitee on US Route Numbering to the Standing Committee on Highways approved the change on May 4, 2007, conditional on the project being built.

this was done deal a long time ago.

agentsteel53

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 18, 2011, 10:17:03 PM

So says he who left the human race a decade ago.

where was I on Oct 19th, 2001?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Michael in Philly

#57
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 18, 2011, 11:08:27 AM
I think it's fair to make gratuitous remarks about every politician.  if they didn't want the criticism, they should never have left the human race.

I'm not talking about offending politicians, I'm talking about partisanship invading forums that have no need for it.
There was a moderator pronouncement to this effect a couple of days ago, but it seems to have been moderated.  (The word "germane" was used, but the search function brings up nothing with that word now.)
RIP Dad 1924-2012.

Hot Rod Hootenanny

Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

YankeesFan

why don't they just complete the beltway that already goes around Trenton and call it 695 or 895? (co-signed with the future 95 in the southern portion) all they are missing is one interchange that would have to be built at the current I-295/NJTP extension.

i agree that the I-195 is ridiculous.

SteveG1988

Quote from: YankeesFan on November 18, 2011, 10:33:20 PM
why don't they just complete the beltway that already goes around Trenton and call it 695 or 895? (co-signed with the future 95 in the southern portion) all they are missing is one interchange that would have to be built at the current I-295/NJTP extension.

i agree that the I-195 is ridiculous.

Welcome to the board YankeesFan, you are incorrect with the beltway, as it would require a new interchange on the NJ turnpike as well as the PA turnpike, completing the loop.

In all honesty trenton has a beltway, it is NJ29 and 95/295/Future 195. NJ29 is the western part of it and the interstates are the eastern and northern parts, as trenton is a relatively small city (84,913 people) There is no real need for a beltway system, the roads serve the town adequately as is, it is connected to the interstate highway system via US1 and NJ29 directly.
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

YankeesFan

steve, i agree there is no real need for it, but it's already in place, just lacking one connection in the southeast portion, and i am talking about the one that loops Trenton, Morrisville, Levvitown, etc.

if they built and interchange between I-295 and the NJTP PA ext, you'd be able to do laps around those above towns.

SteveG1988

Problem is, that would introduce rather nasty weaving since 295 is rather close to the NJTP Main Line when it crosses over the extension. Also you can consider US1 to be part of the beltline, since it connects to both 95 and 295.
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

YankeesFan

yeah they are close, but the area is pretty empty, i'm sure a design could be worked out nicely...i just never understand why this state half assed SO many roads.

PHLBOS

#64
Quote from: Steve on October 18, 2011, 07:00:04 PM
Quote from: Roadman66 on October 18, 2011, 01:32:41 AM
Once I-95 becomes I-195 in NJ past Laurence Township, will exit 60 become redesigned? Will high speed ramps be built, instead of the current 35 mph ramps, to connect the future I-195 designation with the current one?

I also think I figured out the exit renumbering, milage based of course. All of the exits, from Ewing to Belmar will be renumbered. Start with exit 1 on the current I-95 in Ewing, and head up to 8, then exit 67 on 295 (future 195) will be exit 9, exit 65 will be 11 A-B, etc.....then onto the current 195 freeway, exit 1 will become exit 17, then....jumping to exit 16 which is Six Flags, this will be future exit 32 A-B, etc, all the way to exit 52, which is the GSP (current exit 36 in Wall Twp).

Post Merge: October 18, 2011, 18:54:52

Also, the northern terminus for 295 at exit 60...first I must say I hate the sign that has the control city of Princeton. Here is a pic: https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey200/i-295_nb_exit_060_07.jpg

I-295 does not really travel to Princeton. I mean not directly. It kind of avoids it. A better location would be Ewing or Lawrenceville. Anyway, these signs will probably be replaced. I'm guessing it will read End I-295, begin I-195 West.



Exit 60 has no plans to be upgraded - keep in mind that 195-295 isn't going to magically grow in volume when it becomes 195-195. Most of the 195 traffic is headed to the Turnpike or Trenton, as opposed to continuing into PA, and those heading into PA are likely to go south on 295 anyway to not go out of their way. It's ridiculous that 195 is getting extended instead of 295 or even a new number like 895, but no matter what it would be called, same end result. Re: exit numbers, that ties in here - if 295 were extended, only a few mileposts and exits would change. If 895 were created, nothing in NJ would change except the shields. 195 is the most costly and least sensible of the possible numbers, and given how little money NJDOT has, I can't fathom why they'd accept it.

What I hate most at the northern terminus is that I-295 is signed Exit 60 from I-195 because NJ doesn't use Exit 0. Better off just not signing it at all, then. Most people not taking NJ 29 or I-195 at this point are likely going to either US 1 or... surprise... Princeton. Ewing and Lawrenceville make no sense because no one goes there (not literally no one, but comparatively). I'd rather see New Brunswick, if anything.
Personally (yes I do realize that the planned 195 designation is a done deal), what PA & NJDOT should've done with the 95/295 from the PA Turnpike to I-195 is redesignate that stretch as I-695 as a few have already stated.  That would've been the least disruptive change in terms of route and exit number/mile marker changes and would not have the only through-route go through the 295/195/29 interchange via exit ramps... especially the cloverleaf ramp from 295 South (Future 195 East) to 195 East.  Personally, I'm surprised a flyover 295 South/195 East ramp wasn't built with the interchange because prior to the 295 'gap' being filled and Route 29 being extended; 295S/195E did indeed resembled a potential fly-over layout/pattern.  Maybe the Feds looked at an old aerial of this area (pre-interchange) when they decided go extend the 195 designation along 295/95.

Cardinally, the preferred 695 in PA would be north-south but east-west in NJ.

As far as the Princeton control city signage is concerned; two thoughts:

1.  Although the sign was erected in the 1990s as part of the interchange and 295 completion project; the Princeton control city selection likely dates back to when the Somerset County portion of I-95 still in the picture.

2.  While 295 doesn't go to Princeton, it also doesn't go into Trenton either but yet all the 295 North signs south of this interchange have Trenton as its control city.  Playing devil's advocate here, Princeton is more familiar to most motorists than say, Ewing.

BTW, that entire exit sign in that pic was replaced after only 4-5 years with the legend reading EAST 195 TO NJTP 29 NORTH 29 EAST 195 TO NJTP Trenton Belmar.  IMHO, the route number signs (in terms of font) on the older sign looked better.  They should've just repositioned the 195 & 29 signs and replaced the button-copy Shore Points with Belmar and left it at that.  Granted, the NORTH, EAST and the TO cardinals would've been tougher to fit on the old sign.  I guess NJTP took precedence over NJ 129 in NJDOT's eyes.

With regards to EXIT 0; what states/roads actually use that designation?  The closest I've seen is the un-numbered western terminus of I-195 at I-95 in Providence, RI.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Alex

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 14, 2012, 11:07:42 AM

BTW, that entire exit sign in that pic was replaced after only 4-5 years with the legend reading EAST 195 TO NJTP 29 Trenton Belmar.  IMHO, the route number signs (in terms of font) on the older sign looked better.  They should've just repositioned the 195 & 29 signs and replaced the button-copy Shore Points with Belmar and left it at that.  Granted, the EAST and the TO cardinals would've been tougher to fit on the old sign.  I guess NJTP took precedence over NJ 129 in NJDOT's eyes.

The replacement FWIW:


PHLBOS

Quote from: Alex on February 14, 2012, 12:02:57 PM
The replacement FWIW:

Thanks for the photo update.  I've since corrected the legend in my earlier post.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

YankeesFan

#67
"Cardinally, the preferred 695 in PA would be north-south but east-west in NJ."

i agree with this...(sorry next spot is fictional, but related)...

what if I-295 ended at the NJTP extension (Future I-95), then you have the rest of the road turn into a NJ 29 extension (where it become I-695 N at I-195).

after the interchange with I-295 south (current) there are only 2 exits that need to changed.

Alps

Quote from: YankeesFan on February 17, 2012, 08:09:32 PM
"Cardinally, the preferred 695 in PA would be north-south but east-west in NJ."

i agree with this...(sorry next spot is fictional, but related)...

what if I-295 ended at the NJTP extension (Future I-95), then you have the rest of the road turn into a NJ 29 extension (where it become I-695 N at I-195).

after the interchange with I-295 south (current) there are only 2 exits that need to changed.
Not possible becauase it won't connect to NJTP.

mightyace

And I-295 is awful close to the extension's junction with the turnpike mainline.  It might be tough to get a minimum distance separation if one was going to build one.
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

YankeesFan

why does there have to be a connection to end there? it's more of spur once the designations change...195 ends at NJ 138, i know that is nitpicking though.

akotchi

Quote from: mightyace on February 18, 2012, 05:36:52 AM
And I-295 is awful close to the extension's junction with the turnpike mainline.  It might be tough to get a minimum distance separation if one was going to build one.
Thinking "aloud" . . .

From a geometric perspective,setting the plaza and ramps in the NW quadrant of the crossing would maximize the distances to the other interchanges on both roadways -- would likely still be pushing those guidelines.

I'm also not so sure how much demand an interchange here would generate.
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.

vdeane

I'm sure there would be lots of demand from shunpikers.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

MrDisco99

There's plenty of room to put a double trumpet there.  If they wanted to, they would've done it already.  I figure they haven't for much the same reasons they never finished I-95, i.e. to keep as many cars on the Turnpike as possible.

Alps

Maybe they'd want to have ramps from 295 NB-Turnpike NB and 295 SB-Turnpike SB only... that'll keep the shunpikers away (:



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.