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?
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.
Officially the Florence exit is Exit 6A.
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.
^^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.
There is a plan to close the gap, but it will be completed before 2020.
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
The gap is in New Jersey, but, unfortunately, the solution is not . . .
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. "
Well aware of the plans for closing the I-95 gap.
Key words in my post was "if it was up to me".
:cool:
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:
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."
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
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.
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:
So what was the biggest impediment to getting the study finished? Feds, state, neighborhood assoc., outside group interests, other?
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.
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?
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.
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.
^^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
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.
Good ol' Bill Bradley. He was a really good basketball player. Not so good of a senator.
At the rate things are going, US 1 between I-295 and I-287 will ultimately become (de facto) "I-95"....
:spin:
Mike
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.
Quote from: mgk920 on October 17, 2011, 11:34:27 AM
At the rate things are going, US 1 between I-295 and I-287 will ultimately become (de facto) "I-95"....
:spin:
Mike
It was signed that way (northbound, anyway) until the all-freeway route (I-295 and I-195 to Exit 7A) was signed in the field.
Quote from: Grzrd on October 17, 2011, 11:36:14 AM
Bradley played his college ball at Princeton, which coincidentally was in the path of the planned route for I-95.
Sort of. Not meaning to split hairs, but I-95 would've passed (well enough, IMO) to the west of Princeton, through the Somerset Valley, but I guess that was close enough for the NIMBYs living in the Princeton area. So you're correct in the truest way.
There were also a lot of wealthy (read: influential) people living in the Somerset Valley who had moved there, over the years, precisely because there was no freeway in the area. Add them to the extremely vocal (and well-connected) NIMBYs in academe at Princeton... and you have the making of a long-term, multi-generational, astronomically costing, unnecessary pile of makework.
Otherwise known as an extremely complex solution to an relatively simple problem.
And fobbed off on another state no less.
Quote from: qguy on October 17, 2011, 12:25:54 PM
Sort of. Not meaning to split hairs, but I-95 would've passed (well enough, IMO) to the west of Princeton, through the Somerset Valley, but I guess that was close enough for the NIMBYs living in the Princeton area. So you're correct in the truest way.
Thank you for the clarification. I took a quick look at the map on this link: http://www.njfreeways.com/Interstate_95_Gap_Map1.html and used an expansive notion of "path" in my post. I appreciate your local knowledge on the subject.
Also thank you for sharing your "insider's view" of the overall years-long political process. Great posts! It must have been simultaneously fascinating and maddening.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2011, 10:52:08 AM
Good ol' Bill Bradley. He was a really good basketball player. Not so good of a senator.
Do you need to make gratuitous remarks about every Democrat that's mentioned here?
Quote from: qguy on October 17, 2011, 12:25:54 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 17, 2011, 11:36:14 AM
Bradley played his college ball at Princeton, which coincidentally was in the path of the planned route for I-95.
Sort of. Not meaning to split hairs, but I-95 would've passed (well enough, IMO) to the west of Princeton, through the Somerset Valley, but I guess that was close enough for the NIMBYs living in the Princeton area. So you're correct in the truest way.
There were also a lot of wealthy (read: influential) people living in the Somerset Valley who had moved there, over the years, precisely because there was no freeway in the area. Add them to the extremely vocal (and well-connected) NIMBYs in academe at Princeton... and you have the making of a long-term, multi-generational, astronomically costing, unnecessary pile of makework.
Otherwise known as an extremely complex solution to an relatively simple problem.
And fobbed off on another state no less.
As I remember it, it was Hopewell and Montgomery townships that didn't want 95; Hillsborough (and I think Franklin) did. Didn't remember Bradley being involved (not that I'm doubting you - I just don't remember). And Princeton wasn't on the route.
correct about all 4 towns. hopewell and Montgomery were against it. the other two would have been OK with it. Princeton had little, if not nothing, to do with it
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on October 17, 2011, 08:46:23 PM
correct about all 4 towns. hopewell and Montgomery were against it. the other two would have been OK with it. Princeton had little, if not nothing, to do with it
Also to you thanks for the local knowledge. In looking at a map of the Preferred Alternatives, it looks like the routes would have passed within two to four miles of the closest point of the Princeton limits: http://www.njfreeways.com/Interstate_95_Gap_Map4.html
I should have said "close to" instead of "in the path of". I live in metro Atlanta, where a driving distance of five miles is relatively insignificant; I used my daily experience as a reference point.
It is very interesting to hear which communities were for it and which were against it. Thanks again.
Hopewell and Montgomery were (Hopewell still is) about as rural as anything in central New Jersey gets these days, and a lot of their inhabitants probably want to keep it that way. (One claim to fame of Hopewell is that Charles Lindbergh and his wife lived there at the time their baby was kidnapped, in the O.J. Simpson case of the 1930s.) We're talking people who like seclusion and can afford to get their way. Hillsborough was much more developed and would probably have loved a freeway to relieve US 206. If we can forgive a brief detour into "fictional highways," it might have made sense to build the piece from 206 to I-287 and call it I-187.
And since we're talking about a state with municipalities covering every inch of its territory, Princeton may only have been a few miles off the route, but that means they had no say one way or the other: it wasn't on their turf.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 17, 2011, 07:56:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2011, 10:52:08 AM
Good ol' Bill Bradley. He was a really good basketball player. Not so good of a senator.
Do you need to make gratuitous remarks about every Democrat that's mentioned here?
Yes he does.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 17, 2011, 09:28:59 PM
Princeton may only have been a few miles off the route, but that means they had no say one way or the other: it wasn't on their turf.
I freely admit that my self-reference as to distance does not fit this area. That said, the reason it wasn't on Princeton's turf circa 1980 is that the Princeton NIMBYs had the proposed route shifted westward circa 1965. Here is the link to the first map I posted: http://www.njfreeways.com/Interstate_95_Gap_Map1.html
Relevant commentary beneath the map is as follows:
"The 'fatal flaw' of this route is clearly visible here: it came very close to Princeton Boro and crossed well into Princeton Township. The Princeton's were the source of the outward-spiralling wave of protest against the Somerset Freeway (I-95) which would eventually result in its cancellation."
By 1980, the Princeton NIMBYs, as the "source" of protest against I-95, had won the first victory against the Somerset Freeway - get it moved from their backyard to the backyard of Hopewell, etc. As a result, they appear to me to have been the primary force in getting the the routes of the Preferred Alternatives moved westward and had a great deal of say in the matter.
I also suspect, going by qguy's posts, that there were elements in Princeton circa 1980 who worked to kill the Somerset Freeway altogether in order to REALLY get it out of their backyard.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 17, 2011, 07:58:30 PM
As I remember it, it was Hopewell and Montgomery townships that didn't want 95; Hillsborough (and I think Franklin) did.
Correct. Despite my verbose post, I did oversimplify to an extent. Or I would've needed chapter headings.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 17, 2011, 07:58:30 PM
Didn't remember Bradley being involved... .
Actually Sen. Bradley was instrumental in getting the legislation introduced and passed.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 17, 2011, 07:58:30 PM
And Princeton wasn't on the route.
Princeton wasn't on the route, but anti-progress types--and every college campus has them, both on staff and in the student body--most definitely added their voices of opposition, both publicly and behind the scenes.
Quote from: Grzrd on October 17, 2011, 10:47:46 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 17, 2011, 09:28:59 PM
Princeton may only have been a few miles off the route, but that means they had no say one way or the other: it wasn't on their turf.
I freely admit that my self-reference as to distance does not fit this area. That said, the reason it wasn't on Princeton's turf circa 1980 is that the Princeton NIMBYs had the proposed route shifted westward circa 1965. Here is the link to the first map I posted: http://www.njfreeways.com/Interstate_95_Gap_Map1.html
Relevant commentary beneath the map is as follows:
"The 'fatal flaw' of this route is clearly visible here: it came very close to Princeton Boro and crossed well into Princeton Township. The Princeton's were the source of the outward-spiralling wave of protest against the Somerset Freeway (I-95) which would eventually result in its cancellation."
By 1980, the Princeton NIMBYs, as the "source" of protest against I-95, had won the first victory against the Somerset Freeway - get it moved from their backyard to the backyard of Hopewell, etc. As a result, they appear to me to have been the primary force in getting the the routes of the Preferred Alternatives moved westward and had a great deal of say in the matter.
I also suspect, going by qguy's posts, that there were elements in Princeton circa 1980 who worked to kill the Somerset Freeway altogether in order to REALLY get it out of their backyard.
What *he* said.
Quote from: qguy on October 17, 2011, 11:02:53 PM
What *he* said.
I take it that I fell prey to believing what I read on the internet. Can you suggest an authoritative primary source on the evolution of the routes of the Somerset Freeway? It's a fascinating story.
Quote from: Grzrd on October 17, 2011, 11:18:20 PMI take it that I fell prey to believing what I read on the internet. Can you suggest an authoritative primary source on the evolution of the routes of the Somerset Freeway? It's a fascinating story.
Try the Congressional record, FHWA records, NJ state archives (for NJDOT records; if NJDOT is like PennDOT, their own records go back only so far), PA state archive, things like that. Others may have other (better?) ideas.
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, 06:54:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Grzrd on October 17, 2011, 10:47:46 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 17, 2011, 09:28:59 PM
Princeton may only have been a few miles off the route, but that means they had no say one way or the other: it wasn't on their turf.
I freely admit that my self-reference as to distance does not fit this area. That said, the reason it wasn't on Princeton's turf circa 1980 is that the Princeton NIMBYs had the proposed route shifted westward circa 1965. Here is the link to the first map I posted: http://www.njfreeways.com/Interstate_95_Gap_Map1.html
Relevant commentary beneath the map is as follows:
"The 'fatal flaw' of this route is clearly visible here: it came very close to Princeton Boro and crossed well into Princeton Township. The Princeton's were the source of the outward-spiralling wave of protest against the Somerset Freeway (I-95) which would eventually result in its cancellation."
By 1980, the Princeton NIMBYs, as the "source" of protest against I-95, had won the first victory against the Somerset Freeway - get it moved from their backyard to the backyard of Hopewell, etc. As a result, they appear to me to have been the primary force in getting the the routes of the Preferred Alternatives moved westward and had a great deal of say in the matter.
I also suspect, going by qguy's posts, that there were elements in Princeton circa 1980 who worked to kill the Somerset Freeway altogether in order to REALLY get it out of their backyard.
I was born in 1964, and grew up a bit to the northeast of this area, so my memories of all this go back to when the controversy about, and ultimate killing of, the Hopewell/Montgomery routing was in the news in the early '80s. Didn't know there was an earlier Princeton routing.
Quote from: qguy on October 17, 2011, 11:46:35 PM
What *he* said.
Quote from: qguy on October 17, 2011, 11:46:35 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 17, 2011, 11:18:20 PMI take it that I fell prey to believing what I read on the internet. Can you suggest an authoritative primary source on the evolution of the routes of the Somerset Freeway? It's a fascinating story.
Try the Congressional record, FHWA records, NJ state archives (for NJDOT records; if NJDOT is like PennDOT, their own records go back only so far), PA state archive, things like that. Others may have other (better?) ideas.
Thanks. Just so I don't reinvent the wheel, here is a link to a page on the website I referenced which provides an overview of the proposed I-95 routes: http://www.njfreeways.com/Interstate_95_Gap_Map0.html
First, according to this page, the "Somerset Freeway" was first proposed in 1972 and the 1964 proposal to which I provided a link was a remnant of a "North Jersey Expressway" proposal (I apparently mistakenly referred to this as a "Somerset Freeway" proposal). Are you suggesting that a "North Jersey Expressway" proposal did not exist circa 1964?
Also, it looks like the initial proposed route for a pre-interstate system north Jersey freeway, circa 1954, ("Trenton-New Brunswick Expressway") was routed
east of Princeton. Is this also factually inaccurate?
Apologies, but I am sincerely interested in the history of the proposed routings (I lived in Philadelphia 1989-1991 and spent many weekends driving around exploring and trying to figure out a way to "close the gap"). Your first post quoted above is somewhat cryptic; are you alleging that (a) the website's renderings of the proposed routings are factually inaccurate, (b) the website's characterizations of opposition to I-95 are inaccurate, or (c) both? This will help me focus my research.
Raymond Marton's site is very good, even if the most recent info is becoming a little dated. His pages on the I-95 gap and solution start here:
www.njfreeways.com/Interstate_95_Gap.html
He researched a *ton* of info for that history. (I was one of the contributors; therefore it must be good. :-D )
The long and short of it is that NIMBYs in central NJ fought the construction of I-95 no matter *where* it was proposed to be built. The state proposed it one place–they fought it. The state said, "OK then, howzabout over here?"–they fought it. The state proposed, "Perhaps in this location then?"–"Nope, we're a-gin' it!" Enough vocal opposition just didn't want it anywhere, no matter what. They were only going to be satisfied with complete abandonment.
And in the end, that is what they got.
It has been much noted among the roadgeek population that there is no direct all-highway connection between New York City and Philadelphia. What doesn't get noticed as much is that direct and all-highway or not, there is not–and even when the I-95/PATP connection is built there will not be–an alternate highway route between the two largest cities on the east coast. The NJTP is and will be the only highway route between the two.
Quote from: qguy on October 18, 2011, 09:21:01 AM
Raymond Marton's site is very good .. He researched a *ton* of info for that history. (I was one of the contributors; therefore it must be good. :-D )
Thanks for affirming the quality of the website. You just saved me a *ton* of time. :-D
Quote from: qguy on October 18, 2011, 09:21:01 AM
Raymond Marton's site is very good, even if the most recent info is becoming a little dated. His pages on the I-95 gap and solution start here:
www.njfreeways.com/Interstate_95_Gap.html
He researched a *ton* of info for that history. (I was one of the contributors; therefore it must be good. :-D )
The long and short of it is that NIMBYs in central NJ fought the construction of I-95 no matter *where* it was proposed to be built. The state proposed it one placethey fought it. The state said, "OK then, howzabout over here?"they fought it. The state proposed, "Perhaps in this location then?""Nope, we're a-gin' it!" Enough vocal opposition just didn't want it anywhere, no matter what. They were only going to be satisfied with complete abandonment.
And in the end, that is what they got.
It has been much noted among the roadgeek population that there is no direct all-highway connection between New York City and Philadelphia. What doesn't get noticed as much is that direct and all-highway or not, there is notand even when the I-95/PATP connection is built there will not bean alternate highway route between the two largest cities on the east coast. The NJTP is and will be the only highway route between the two.
Heck, it's been much noted among the general public, at least in Philadelphia, that there's no direct route to New York. Which is why I feel so strongly about the oh-just-shift-the-95-designation-to-the-Turnpike option. That would just make everyone feel they'd solved the problem - everyone in New York and Washington, that is.
Quote from: Grzrd on October 18, 2011, 09:27:56 AM
Thanks for affirming the quality of the website. You just saved me a *ton* of time. :-D
My contribution (although crucial :-P) was actually rather small. Which reminds me. If you contacted him, Raymond would likely be able to point you in more than a few good directions for research of your own. He did a lot of primary research, 99% of which I have only the vaguest idea from whence he dug it.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 18, 2011, 09:44:00 AM
Heck, it's been much noted among the general public, at least in Philadelphia, that there's no direct route to New York. Which is why I feel so strongly about the oh-just-shift-the-95-designation-to-the-Turnpike option. That would just make everyone feel they'd solved the problem - everyone in New York and Washington, that is.
Correct. Re-routing I-95 along the entire length of the PATP would in no way solve the two underlying problems of having no direct connection and no alternate route between NYC and Phila. It would only make people *think* they were solved.
About the only advantage to the re-routed designation option that I can see (from an I-95/PATP connection standpoint) is that it would allow the connection to be a slower-speed configuration, probably the double-trumpet design originally intended so long ago.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 18, 2011, 10:22:34 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 17, 2011, 09:40:24 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 17, 2011, 07:56:17 PM
Do you need to make gratuitous remarks about every Democrat that's mentioned here?
Yes he does.
Well, somebody's got to. :-D
Please. There are plenty of places to argue politics. Criticizing LaHood's or Bradley's policies is fine; claiming the ex-ambassador to China has "no principles" because - gasp! - he took a job in a Democrat's administration, besides being offensive to tens of millions of your fellow citizens (which we are, whatever Michelle Bachman's definition of "American" may be), is off-topic and can be done elsewhere. I for one don't come to this forum expecting that sort of crap (and it would be true in the other direction, of course); sometimes I'm actually avoiding politics, or trying to, because I'm in a sick-of-it phase.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-295_nb_exit_060_01.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-295_nb_exit_060_01.jpg)
Quote from: Alex on February 14, 2012, 12:02:57 PM
The replacement FWIW:
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-295_nb_exit_060_01.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-295_nb_exit_060_01.jpg)
Thanks for the photo update. I've since corrected the legend in my earlier post.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure there would be lots of demand from shunpikers.
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.
Maybe they'd want to have ramps from 295 NB-Turnpike NB and 295 SB-Turnpike SB only... that'll keep the shunpikers away (:
Quote from: MrDisco99 on February 18, 2012, 03:13:14 PM
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.
Not to mention that NJTPA totally redid Exit 6A (US 130 interchange) about a decade ago.
Quote from: Steve on February 18, 2012, 10:48:12 PM
Maybe they'd want to have ramps from 295 NB-Turnpike NB and 295 SB-Turnpike SB only... that'll keep the shunpikers away (:
That
could work.
Quote from: qguy on October 18, 2011, 09:21:01 AM
Raymond Marton's site is very good, even if the most recent info is becoming a little dated. His pages on the I-95 gap and solution start here:
www.njfreeways.com/Interstate_95_Gap.html
He researched a *ton* of info for that history. (I was one of the contributors; therefore it must be good. :-D )
The long and short of it is that NIMBYs in central NJ fought the construction of I-95 no matter *where* it was proposed to be built. The state proposed it one place–they fought it. The state said, "OK then, howzabout over here?"–they fought it. The state proposed, "Perhaps in this location then?"–"Nope, we're a-gin' it!" Enough vocal opposition just didn't want it anywhere, no matter what. They were only going to be satisfied with complete abandonment.
And in the end, that is what they got.
It has been much noted among the roadgeek population that there is no direct all-highway connection between New York City and Philadelphia. What doesn't get noticed as much is that direct and all-highway or not, there is not–and even when the I-95/PATP connection is built there will not be–an alternate highway route between the two largest cities on the east coast. The NJTP is and will be the only highway route between the two.
It's been a while since posts were added to this discussion, which I have found through Google searches using "I-95 New Jersey gap" as query. As a Canadian who has driven through the "gap" several times, through various routes, on our way to Virginia Beach from Quebec City, I was very interested in this discussion thread. I would like to share my thoughts on this issue.
First, I was a bit surprised that the solution reached by the DOT authorities for closing the gap is to build a high-speed interchange between I-95 and I-276 in Bristol, PA. It seems like the only reason for building this costly interchange is to have I-95 shields all along the way from Philadelphia to NYC. If the need to have I-95 signs all along the way was indeed the primary concern, why not simply renumber the section of I-295 between I-95 and I-195 as I-95, then renumber I-195 between current I-295 and NJ Tpk as I-95, then confirm numbering of the NJ Tpk section between current I-195 and GWB as I-95? In other words, making changes to the numbering of existing expressways would allow motorists to stay on I-95 all along the way. Admittedly, current I-195 interchanges with I-95 and NJ Tpk are not high-speed, but perhaps that could be done? In addition, it is obvious that this solution would not be the shortest path in terms of distance. I leave it up to you, the taxpayers, to decide whether this planned investment will be worthwhile.
The second important point, eloquently expressed by qguy, is that the only expressway going from Trenton to New Brunswick is, and will remain, NJ Tpk. Now imagine the increased traffic to the NJ Tpk section between Trenton and New Brunswick brought about by a high-speed connection between I-95 and I-276? That expressway section, which currently sees heavy traffic, is bound to be clogged solid. It does not make sense to me that three expressways or so (I-95, I-295, and NJ Tpk) allow to go from Trenton to the Delaware Memorial Bridge - Wilmington area, yet for a ~25 mile gap between Trenton and New Brunswick, the only option is and will be NJ Tpk. This section will likely become a nightmare for motorists. Good luck! The same bottleneck effect occurs between Wilmington, DE and Baltimore, albeit to a lesser extent since a fraction of southbound traffic heads to Delaware
via DE-1 expressway. From Baltimore going northbound, I presume it is, and will remain, difficult.
Last point. Looks weird to me that long stretches of NJ Tpk are not numbered - the "numberless" expressway :hmmm:. As others have mentioned before, a simple solution to the I-95 gap is to assign I-95 for the entire length of NK Tpk, and renumber current I-95 in PA to something like I-695 or another connecting number. Still, that does not solve the Trenton-to-New Brunswick single-expressway issue mentioned above. The ultimate solution would be to continue I-95 way north of the original Somerset County path. For NJ Tpk authorities who worry that they would lose motorists and money if I-95 were to be extended to connect with I-287, I do not think it is a valid concern: the steady increase in traffic would very likely compensate for the loss in motorists and money very quickly.
Last comment, I promise: I am not the one who is paying, so my suggestions are free! Don't worry: we have enough traffic problems in Montreal, Quebec City, etc., to pay for!
Looking forward for comments and feedback...
Amicalement,
JF, alias Sansbonsang
Quote from: Sansbonsang on July 21, 2012, 04:24:51 PM
First, I was a bit surprised that the solution reached by the DOT authorities for closing the gap is to build a high-speed interchange between I-95 and I-276 in Bristol, PA. It seems like the only reason for building this costly interchange is to have I-95 shields all along the way from Philadelphia to NYC. If the need to have I-95 signs all along the way was indeed the primary concern, why not simply renumber the section of I-295 between I-95 and I-195 as I-95, then renumber I-195 between current I-295 and NJ Tpk as I-95, then confirm numbering of the NJ Tpk section between current I-195 and GWB as I-95? In other words, making changes to the numbering of existing expressways would allow motorists to stay on I-95 all along the way. Admittedly, current I-195 interchanges with I-95 and NJ Tpk are not high-speed, but perhaps that could be done? In addition, it is obvious that this solution would not be the shortest path in terms of distance. I leave it up to you, the taxpayers, to decide whether this planned investment will be worthwhile.
It probably costs less to do what they're doing now than it would to redo the I-195 interchanges to make it more of a through route. Also, the I-276/I-95 connection should have been built decades ago, and still should be built with more movements than it will have (NB/SB 95 only).
Quote
The second important point, eloquently expressed by qguy, is that the only expressway going from Trenton to New Brunswick is, and will remain, NJ Tpk. Now imagine the increased traffic to the NJ Tpk section between Trenton and New Brunswick brought about by a high-speed connection between I-95 and I-276? That expressway section, which currently sees heavy traffic, is bound to be clogged solid. It does not make sense to me that three expressways or so (I-95, I-295, and NJ Tpk) allow to go from Trenton to the Delaware Memorial Bridge - Wilmington area, yet for a ~25 mile gap between Trenton and New Brunswick, the only option is and will be NJ Tpk. This section will likely become a nightmare for motorists. Good luck! The same bottleneck effect occurs between Wilmington, DE and Baltimore, albeit to a lesser extent since a fraction of southbound traffic heads to Delaware via DE-1 expressway. From Baltimore going northbound, I presume it is, and will remain, difficult.
This is why the Turnpike is widening from Interchanges 6-9. By the time PA completes its portion, the NJ Turnpike will be 6 lanes in each direction all the way from the Penn Tpk. Extension, so there will be absolutely no issues with traffic.
Quote
Last point. Looks weird to me that long stretches of NJ Tpk are not numbered - the "numberless" expressway :hmmm:. As others have mentioned before, a simple solution to the I-95 gap is to assign I-95 for the entire length of NJ Tpk, and renumber current I-95 in PA to something like I-695 or another connecting number. Still, that does not solve the Trenton-to-New Brunswick single-expressway issue mentioned above. The ultimate solution would be to continue I-95 way north of the original Somerset County path. For NJ Tpk authorities who worry that they would lose motorists and money if I-95 were to be extended to connect with I-287, I do not think it is a valid concern: the steady increase in traffic would very likely compensate for the loss in motorists and money very quickly.
Philadelphia doesn't want to lose its 2-digit N-S interstate. Philly is a very important city, especially historically, and deserves to have the I-95 mainline through there. Why it wasn't an I-95 W/E issue is probably because NJ didn't push very hard to have I-95E - at that time the southern Turnpike was (and still somewhat is) very rural and low-traffic.
Continuing I-95 along the Somerset County path is still necessary. Even with the Turnpike widening, there is a lot of local traffic between those points using US 206, NJ 31, and other hardly-worthy alternates. For example, from the I-287/80 junction to Philadelphia, the best route is to take US 206, not the Turnpike. I actually take other back roads to avoid 206. The Hillsborough Bypass is a start, but not enough. A Somerset Freeway would be less deleterious to the Tpk. than the actually-built I-295 that siphons off traffic from Exits 1-7 or 7A. But at this point, there are enough rich NIMBYs that it will never happen.
The need stands for the I-95 / PA Turnpike interchange, for regional and local access, even aside from the issue of I-95 continuity.
Regarding the unnumbered segment of the NJTP south of the PA Turnpike extension, it could be I-695 or I-895, if they really want an Interstate route number.
Quote from: Beltway on July 21, 2012, 05:04:00 PM
The need stands for the I-95 / PA Turnpike interchange, for regional and local access, even aside from the issue of I-95 continuity.
Regarding the unnumbered segment of the NJTP south of the PA Turnpike extension, it could be I-695 or I-895, if they really want an Interstate route number.
i think they should make the NJTP south of PA turnpike extension 295 and make the current 295 a southern extension of NJ 29
Quote from: Sansbonsang on July 21, 2012, 04:24:51 PMalias Sansbonsang
Others have already provided the replies I might've, so I have just one question: What in the world is a bonsang, and why are you without one?
Quote from: qguy on July 21, 2012, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: Sansbonsang on July 21, 2012, 04:24:51 PMalias Sansbonsang
Others have already provided the replies I might've, so I have just one question: What in the world is a bonsang, and why are you without one?
"Sansbonsang" is a contraction of a French expression, "sans bon sang". A literal translation would be like "no bloody sense", or "without bloody sense". I work for the blood component supplier serving the hospitals of the Province of Quebec, hence the reference to blood in my nickname.
Thanks to all those who posted sound and sensible replies to my post.
Quote from: Sansbonsang on July 21, 2012, 10:44:54 PM
Quote from: qguy on July 21, 2012, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: Sansbonsang on July 21, 2012, 04:24:51 PMalias Sansbonsang
Others have already provided the replies I might've, so I have just one question: What in the world is a bonsang, and why are you without one?
"Sansbonsang" is a contraction of a French expression, "sans bon sang". A literal translation would be like "no bloody sense", or "without bloody sense". I work for the blood component supplier serving the hospitals of the Province of Quebec, hence the reference to blood in my nickname.
Thanks to all those who posted sound and sensible replies to my post.
Very interesting. As with most forums, many (if not most) of the posters have monikers with some sort of meaning behind them. Sometimes we can figure them out, but sometimes the meaning is known only to the owner. With my high school French, I knew what
sans meant, but the rest was a head-scratcher. (To me anyway. Others may have known.)
The NJ Turnpike mainline that isn't part of I-95 (south of exit 6) is secret NJ 700. If it wasn't for the desire to keep I-95 in Philadelphia, I think I-95 would have been signed on the entire length of the Turnpike.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the southern section had an official interstate number (most likely an I-x95).
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 22, 2012, 08:19:30 PM
The NJ Turnpike mainline that isn't part of I-95 (south of exit 6) is secret NJ 700. If it wasn't for the desire to keep I-95 in Philadelphia, I think I-95 would have been signed on the entire length of the Turnpike.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the southern section had an official interstate number (most likely an I-x95).
I wonder if that's why states such as VA ignore Philadelphia as a control city on 95 and use NYC instead...do other states think that 95 is signed over the entire Turnpike and therefore misses Philly to the east?
Quote from: broadhurst04 on July 22, 2012, 09:23:37 PM
I wonder if that's why states such as VA ignore Philadelphia as a control city on 95 and use NYC instead...do other states think that 95 is signed over the entire Turnpike and therefore misses Philly to the east?
All they would have to do is look at a map to see that I-95 goes through DE and PA.
There are probably 2 reasons -- the NJTP and DM Bridge provided the through freeway route before I-95 was conceived, and I-95 still has a missing link in PA.
So there may be a widespread public sense that the entire NJTP and the DM Bridge are the "implicit I-95" between DE and NY.
Quote from: broadhurst04 on July 22, 2012, 09:23:37 PM
I wonder if that's why states such as VA ignore Philadelphia as a control city on 95 and use NYC instead...do other states think that 95 is signed over the entire Turnpike and therefore misses Philly to the east?
My guess is that most of the traffic on I-95 in Virginia that's headed north is headed for NYC, not Philly. Of course there are a handful of other control cities between there and Philly, such as DC, Baltimore and Wilmington. Not to mention the good ol' Del Mem Br.
Quote from: YankeesFan on July 21, 2012, 05:30:38 PM
i think they should make the NJTP south of PA turnpike extension 295 and make the current 295 a southern extension of NJ 29
29 is a state route, so that would be decommissioning the interstate designation of 295 for 60 miles, which would serve no benefit whatsoever.
Remember - I-295 was supposed to be a large loop around Wilmington, Philadelphia & Trenton, meeting back up with 95 north of Trenton. Of course, 95 was never completed in NJ. That, combined with how 295 goes thru NJ away from PA, makes it look and feel like a separate route rather than a loop around a city (or in this case, cities), which is how a 3di is supposed to operate.
One can argue that since it won't meet up with the parent 95, 295 should become 395 or another odd digit 3di since tehnically it'll be a spur rather than a loop (although it'll continue as another 3di). One way around that is to cosign 195 between I-295 (Exit 60) and the NJ Turnpike (Exit 6) as 295 also, so it would meet back up with 95!
If they wanted to give the NJ Turnpike below Interchange 6 an interstate designation, they could simply give it 695 or 895, neither of which are used in NJ.
<<< My guess is that most of the traffic on I-95 in Virginia that's headed north is headed for NYC, not Philly. Of course there are a handful of other control cities between there and Philly, such as DC, Baltimore and Wilmington. Not to mention the good ol' Del Mem Br. >>>
Maryland does the same as Virginia, they omit Philadelphia as well.
Quote from: Beltway on July 23, 2012, 10:39:02 AM
Maryland does the same as Virginia, they omit Philadelphia as well.
Correct.
Once the PTC and PennDOT get the missing connection between I-95 and the E-W mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike remediated (still 4 or 5 years away - how slow can they go), it would seem to make sense for VDOT, Maryland SHA, MdTA, DelDOT, PennDOT and the PTC to perhaps reconsider what control cities are used for I-95 northbound from Fairfax County, Va. all the way up to (and including) the Delaware Expressway. Though the New Jersey Turnpike Authority might not like some traffic bound for New York and North Jersey being diverted away from the Turnpike (south of Exit 6) to use "free" I-95 through Wilmington and Philadelphia.
Same thing for I-95 southbound from the George Washington Bridge, including signage on the New Jersey Turnpike itself approaching Exit 6.
A complete I-95 might be the motivation needed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to seek a 3di (895 or 695, as suggested above) for the section between Exits 1 and 6?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 23, 2012, 04:17:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 23, 2012, 10:39:02 AM
Maryland does the same as Virginia, they omit Philadelphia as well.
Correct.
Once the PTC and PennDOT get the missing connection between I-95 and the E-W mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike remediated (still 4 or 5 years away - how slow can they go), it would seem to make sense for VDOT, Maryland SHA, MdTA, DelDOT, PennDOT and the PTC to perhaps reconsider what control cities are used for I-95 northbound from Fairfax County, Va. all the way up to (and including) the Delaware Expressway. Though the New Jersey Turnpike Authority might not like some traffic bound for New York and North Jersey being diverted away from the Turnpike (south of Exit 6) to use "free" I-95 through Wilmington and Philadelphia.
Same thing for I-95 southbound from the George Washington Bridge, including signage on the New Jersey Turnpike itself approaching Exit 6.
A complete I-95 might be the motivation needed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to seek a 3di (895 or 695, as suggested above) for the section between Exits 1 and 6?
The NJ Turnpike Authority does not want to make it obvious that I-95 leaves the road. Making it a 3di would make the point obvious and more travelers in the year 2020 may choose to take I-95 thru Philadelphia, but i suspect GPS will continue to direct people to take the NJTP no matter what the routing of i-95 is
Quote from: jwolfer on July 23, 2012, 04:55:25 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 23, 2012, 04:17:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 23, 2012, 10:39:02 AM
Maryland does the same as Virginia, they omit Philadelphia as well.
Correct.
Once the PTC and PennDOT get the missing connection between I-95 and the E-W mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike remediated (still 4 or 5 years away - how slow can they go), it would seem to make sense for VDOT, Maryland SHA, MdTA, DelDOT, PennDOT and the PTC to perhaps reconsider what control cities are used for I-95 northbound from Fairfax County, Va. all the way up to (and including) the Delaware Expressway. Though the New Jersey Turnpike Authority might not like some traffic bound for New York and North Jersey being diverted away from the Turnpike (south of Exit 6) to use "free" I-95 through Wilmington and Philadelphia.
Same thing for I-95 southbound from the George Washington Bridge, including signage on the New Jersey Turnpike itself approaching Exit 6.
A complete I-95 might be the motivation needed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to seek a 3di (895 or 695, as suggested above) for the section between Exits 1 and 6?
The NJ Turnpike Authority does not want to make it obvious that I-95 leaves the road.
Once the gap (which was of New Jersey's making - not Pennsylvania's), I don't think they will have much of a choice but to honestly sign I-95 as crossing the Delaware River onto the E-W mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
QuoteMaking it a 3di would make the point obvious and more travelers in the year 2020 may choose to take I-95 thru Philadelphia, but i suspect GPS will continue to direct people to take the NJTP no matter what the routing of i-95 is
Agreed regarding GPS programming.
But a 3di is probably better than "secret" N.J. 700.
IMO,
all roads with a functional classification of freeway should have route numbers.
The current "implicit I-95" bypasses Pennsylvania completely.
That is likely the main reason why Philadelphia is not noted on I-95 in Maryland and Virginia.
That may change once I-95 is completed in Pennsylvania.
Quote from: jwolfer on July 23, 2012, 04:55:25 PM
The NJ Turnpike Authority does not want to make it obvious that I-95 leaves the road. Making it a 3di would make the point obvious and more travelers in the year 2020 may choose to take I-95 thru Philadelphia, but i suspect GPS will continue to direct people to take the NJTP no matter what the routing of i-95 is
Well, it IS obvious that I-95 leaves the road, because it's going to be blatantly signed up at Exit 6, and NB travelers see it continuing to Philly. I think the main reason it won't happen
now is that the NJTA has no reason to go through the trouble of signing another route when they already have a workable shield recognized by travelers all over the country (at least truckers). People know what the NJ Turnpike is, and that won't change regardless of any number that follows it. I don't know why it wasn't originally included in the Interstate system, though, when all the other toll roads were.
Quote from: Steve on July 23, 2012, 08:07:44 PM
I don't know why it wasn't originally included in the Interstate system, though, when all the other toll roads were.
The 1958 plan did not assign an Interstate number to the Ohio Turnpike in the Cleveland area (I-80 followed SR 18 from Norwalk to Youngstown, and I-80N continued past the current end of I-480 to Edinburg).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F3%2F32%2FInterstate_Highway_plan_June_27%252C_1958.jpg&hash=1554ab1a32d923856394963e183637c4c9a285d8)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2F62ohne.jpg&hash=2a6af929e85c514a4973cd774fae234413ed798a)
The Connecticut, Kansas, and Maine Turnpikes also had non-Interstate portions, and a bit of the New York Thruway is still not an Interstate.
Quote from: Beltway on July 23, 2012, 05:39:28 PM
The current "implicit I-95" bypasses Pennsylvania completely.
That is likely the main reason why Philadelphia is not noted on I-95 in Maryland and Virginia.
That may change once I-95 is completed in Pennsylvania.
I strongly agree with you.
I would hope that the subject is reconsidered when I-95 is really completed.
Might be something that the I-95 Corridor Coalition (http://www.i95coalition.org) should discuss.
Quote from: Steve on July 23, 2012, 08:07:44 PM
Well, it IS obvious that I-95 leaves the road, because it's going to be blatantly signed up at Exit 6, and NB travelers see it continuing to Philly.
Might the signs approaching Exit 6 southbound actually include Philadelphia as a
control city?
Quote from: Steve on July 23, 2012, 08:07:44 PM
I think the main reason it won't happen now is that the NJTA has no reason to go through the trouble of signing another route when they already have a workable shield recognized by travelers all over the country (at least truckers).
Though the N.J. Turnpike shield, famous though it is, is not a route number.
Quote from: Steve on July 23, 2012, 08:07:44 PM
People know what the NJ Turnpike is, and that won't change regardless of any number that follows it. I don't know why it wasn't originally included in the Interstate system, though, when all the other toll roads were.
I don't think that is always a good assumption. I am sometimes amazed by how clueless [non-roadgeek] people are on some of these subjects.
Everyone I've ever mentioned the NJTP to in either Virginia or Massachusetts has known exactly what it is immediately. It's easily one of the most famous roads in the country, at least on the east coast. Way more well-known than many interstates. A well-established name like the NJTP is far more recognizable than any number.
And FWIW, my phone (what I'm posting from) autocorrected to NJTP above. Even the acronym came already in my phone's dictionary...
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 24, 2012, 02:06:42 PM
Everyone I've ever mentioned the NJTP to in either Virginia or Massachusetts has known exactly what it is immediately. It's easily one of the most famous roads in the country, at least on the east coast. Way more well-known than many interstates. A well-established name like the NJTP is far more recognizable than any number.
And FWIW, my phone (what I'm posting from) autocorrected to NJTP above. Even the acronym came already in my phone's dictionary...
As famous as it is, many, many people would have never heard of it, or if they heard of it, they paid no mind to it.
There's a reason why Coke and McDonalds advertise even their most basic offerings. Almost everyone has heard of them, but if they stopped advertising, then people think of something else. The New Jersey Turnpike is a road most people have heard of, but unless it involves their travel plans, they probably could care less about it.
In my days of working with the turnpike at Interchange 1, more than one person asked what state they were in. The New Jersey in "New Jersey Turnpike" meant nothing to them.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2012, 02:23:19 PMIn my days of working with the turnpike at Interchange 1, more than one person asked what state they were in. The New Jersey in "New Jersey Turnpike" meant nothing to them.
That is just too hilarious! And in no way contradicts my experience. When I worked at PennDOT, I was often stunned into slack-jawed wonder by some of the questions people would ask me every now and again, sometimes by friends of mine.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2012, 02:23:19 PM
In my days of working with the turnpike at Interchange 1, more than one person asked what state they were in. The New Jersey in "New Jersey Turnpike" meant nothing to them.
What did you tell them? If giving them a fun, incorrect answer weren't probably a Bad Idea for job security, it probably would have been fun to mess with some people like that.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 24, 2012, 02:06:42 PM
Everyone I've ever mentioned the NJTP to in either Virginia or Massachusetts has known exactly what it is immediately. It's easily one of the most famous roads in the country, at least on the east coast. Way more well-known than many interstates. A well-established name like the NJTP is far more recognizable than any number.
....
I've lived in Virginia since 1974 and I agree with this comment, but I've also always been quite surprised when I've given directions at how many people will strenuously insist "the New Jersey Turnpike
IS I-95!!!" (and they weren't referring just to the portion north of Exit 10, or the portion north of Exit 6). The issue would arise when I would tell them that in Delaware they should be sure to follow the signs to I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike and not the signs to I-95. "What do you mean, not to I-95? The New Jersey Turnpike
IS I-95!!!" It's been awhile since I had this argument since I give directions a lot less than I used to with the rise of sat-navs, but I was always surprised by the way someone would ask me for directions because they said I gave better directions than anyone they knew and then they'd turn around and be adamant that I was wrong on the route number. Really? Well, if you're so friggin' sure about it, why are you bothering to ask me for directions?!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2012, 02:23:19 PM
In my days of working with the turnpike at Interchange 1, more than one person asked what state they were in. The New Jersey in "New Jersey Turnpike" meant nothing to them.
Had a similar experience when I was working along the Eisenhower Avenue Connector in the City of Alexandria, Virginia.
A car pulls up and one of the occupants inside asks us "Which way to Johns Hopkins Hospital."
Turns out the folks in the car had driven south from New York or New Jersey (don't know if they took the N.J. Turnpike), and they thought they were in Baltimore.
Fortunately I knew how to get from Alexandria to the Johns Hopkins "main" Medical Campus (JHU has two medical campuses and the non-medical "main" campus in Baltimore), so I was able to send them on their way. Don't know if they ever made it to Hopkins or not.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 24, 2012, 05:19:27 PM
I've lived in Virginia since 1974 and I agree with this comment, but I've also always been quite surprised when I've given directions at how many people will strenuously insist "the New Jersey Turnpike IS I-95!!!" (and they weren't referring just to the portion north of Exit 10, or the portion north of Exit 6). The issue would arise when I would tell them that in Delaware they should be sure to follow the signs to I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike and not the signs to I-95. "What do you mean, not to I-95? The New Jersey Turnpike IS I-95!!!" It's been awhile since I had this argument since I give directions a lot less than I used to with the rise of sat-navs, but I was always surprised by the way someone would ask me for directions because they said I gave better directions than anyone they knew and then they'd turn around and be adamant that I was wrong on the route number. Really? Well, if you're so friggin' sure about it, why are you bothering to ask me for directions?!
Some years ago (mid 1990's?), there was a massive fire along the Delaware Expressway near Philadelphia that shut the road down - completely.
The traffic reporters in the D.C. media market were reporting this, because it was I-95, and advising listeners to take "alternate routes" to get to New York City.
Now they do not normally report anything along I-95 beyond Maryland's JFK Highway, but this was an exception.
I called one of the reporters and tried (and mostly failed) to explain the realities of I-95, though their reports stopped discussing alternate routes to get to New York.
Quote from: qguy on July 24, 2012, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2012, 02:23:19 PMIn my days of working with the turnpike at Interchange 1, more than one person asked what state they were in. The New Jersey in "New Jersey Turnpike" meant nothing to them.
That is just too hilarious! And in no way contradicts my experience. When I worked at PennDOT, I was often stunned into slack-jawed wonder by some of the questions people would ask me every now and again, sometimes by friends of mine.
I know a former toll taker as well. Travelers may be at mile 135 on the New Jersey Parkway - which is really 13.5 on the Turnpike - and not sure which direction they're headed. Or they just passed Newark, but in reality they just passed a SIGN for Newark and are still 80 miles away.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 24, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
Quote from: Steve on July 23, 2012, 08:07:44 PM
Well, it IS obvious that I-95 leaves the road, because it's going to be blatantly signed up at Exit 6, and NB travelers see it continuing to Philly.
Might the signs approaching Exit 6 southbound actually include Philadelphia as a control city?
They will, but the line is currently covered on the signs in place now.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 23, 2012, 10:24:22 AM
Quote from: YankeesFan on July 21, 2012, 05:30:38 PM
i think they should make the NJTP south of PA turnpike extension 295 and make the current 295 a southern extension of NJ 29
29 is a state route, so that would be decommissioning the interstate designation of 295 for 60 miles, which would serve no benefit whatsoever.
Remember - I-295 was supposed to be a large loop around Wilmington, Philadelphia & Trenton, meeting back up with 95 north of Trenton. Of course, 95 was never completed in NJ. That, combined with how 295 goes thru NJ away from PA, makes it look and feel like a separate route rather than a loop around a city (or in this case, cities), which is how a 3di is supposed to operate.
One can argue that since it won't meet up with the parent 95, 295 should become 395 or another odd digit 3di since tehnically it'll be a spur rather than a loop (although it'll continue as another 3di). One way around that is to cosign 195 between I-295 (Exit 60) and the NJ Turnpike (Exit 6) as 295 also, so it would meet back up with 95!
If they wanted to give the NJ Turnpike below Interchange 6 an interstate designation, they could simply give it 695 or 895, neither of which are used in NJ.
but it would be a true bypass if they moved 295 to the NJTP south of 6, this way it now meets it's parent. I would give I-695 or 895 to the current 95/295 in Mercer County.
PurdueBill: I would say "Here's a hint...you're on the NEW JERSEY Turnpike". That meant nothing to them, which was the point of my post! Finally I would just say New Jersey, and they would either thank me, or say "You mean this isn't (fill in the blank with Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania)"???
1995hoo: I had some of them people too. They would ask me for directions; I'd give them the directions, and then they would respond that their mapquest directions told them something else. I said, fine, follow those directions instead. Not that they're much better now, but around years 2000 - 2003 they had some interesting ways to get places...many of them nearly impossible to try, unless you didn't mind hitting some trees along the way!
Steve: I only worked the weekends on the Turnpike, and mostly the overnight shift. Plenty of fun 'discussions' with the motorists. Basically, it taught me how scary it is to be driving alongside these people at highway speeds. Many of them just had no clue at all. Just by knowing what I learned, I would say a good percentage of fuel is wasted from people driving around aimlessly.
YankeesFan: as long as x95 is an even number, it will always represent a loop around a city. Thus, whether it's 295 or 695, the goal is accomplished of designating the NJTP a bypass. And there would be no reason to change exisiting 295 to 695, which would involve changing directions related to about 40 different interchanges in the 67 mile span of 295 alone! The hassle would be tremendously not worth it!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2012, 12:10:02 PM
YankeesFan: as long as x95 is an even number, it will always represent a loop around a city. Thus, whether it's 295 or 695, the goal is accomplished of designating the NJTP a bypass. And there would be no reason to change exisiting 295 to 695, which would involve changing directions related to about 40 different interchanges in the 67 mile span of 295 alone! The hassle would be tremendously not worth it!
i think you need to go back and read my posts...this isn't what i said.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2012, 12:10:02 PM
PurdueBill: I would say "Here's a hint...you're on the NEW JERSEY Turnpike".
"Well, I was just in Philadelphia the other day, and I saw a sign for the DELAWARE Expressway."
Quote from: NE2 on July 25, 2012, 07:39:41 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2012, 12:10:02 PM
PurdueBill: I would say "Here's a hint...you're on the NEW JERSEY Turnpike".
"Well, I was just in Philadelphia the other day, and I saw a sign for the DELAWARE Expressway."
As we know, there is a very prominent river called the Delaware River, bordering the 3 states, and I-95 parallels the river. There is no New Jersey River...
"The day before that, I was in Washington, where I ate at a hot dog cart on NEW JERSEY Avenue. And last year I was in Palo Alto and drove OREGON Expressway."
Quote from: NE2 on July 25, 2012, 09:53:42 PM
"The day before that, I was in Washington, where I ate at a hot dog cart on NEW JERSEY Avenue. And last year I was in Palo Alto and drove OREGON Expressway."
I live on Parsippany Road. I live in Parsippany. I used to live on Livingston Avenue in Livingston. I assume that this is always the case.
Quote from: qguy on October 17, 2011, 11:00:32 PM
Princeton wasn't on the route, but anti-progress types--and every college campus has them, both on staff and in the student body--most definitely added their voices of opposition, both publicly and behind the scenes.
As someone who has been working at Princeton for over seven years now, I can say that the policymakers (as well as those who tend to be most vocal on issues like this) also tend to be the ones who live within walking/biking/quick driving distance from campus. Thus, they want what is best for them.... screw the lowly peons like us who can't afford to live that close on what they pay us. So, we clog up the roads into and out of campus and along US 1, Princeton Pike, and US 206, trying to get home to our affordable housing elsewhere in Mercer, Middlesex, Burlington, and Bucks counties (and then some). I was just a kid (and not living in that area) when all this stuff was decided, but you'd better believe I'd have my ass out at community meetings to make sure my voice was heard, were this still on the table today. NIMBYs think you can stop progress, or that if you don't build it, suddenly they won't come. The sprawl is already there, and now we lack the tools to help deal with it.
</rant>
Edit (to keep from multi-posting):
Quote from: akotchi on February 18, 2012, 12:00:27 PM
I'm also not so sure how much demand an interchange here would generate.
As someone who has taken the Burlington-Bristol Bridge to 130 to CR 541 to 295 a *lot*, I would *love* to have a freeway link across the river to 295. I don't shunpike, either... 295 just has more local exits, so it suits my needs more than the Turnpike does. If I'm in it for the long haul, I'll usually stick with either 95 through Philly or the Turnpike all the way to its southern terminus (mostly because of that 42 mess). This works going the other way, too... just yesterday I needed to route my parents from Cherry Hill (70, near 295) to Newtown off 95. I ended up having them take 73 -> 90 to get 95 via the Betsy Ross (didn't want them to deal with the T-P Bridge and access to 95). A 295 -> Turnpike -> 95 option would have made that a much quicker trip, as they could have avoided a lot of traffic on 73. I can't see how building this interchange would do anything but improve flow on all the local roads that everyone in the area has to already use to get between the various freeways.
Quote from: Compulov on July 26, 2012, 09:21:53 AMAs someone who has taken the Burlington-Bristol Bridge to 130 to CR 541 to 295 a *lot*, I would *love* to have a freeway link across the river to 295.
I agree. Of course, when the I-95/PATP interchange is built, it will provide a connection from I-95 across the river to NJ, but it won't connect with I-295. I've often wondered if that situation will eventually put pressure on the NJTA and NJDOT to provide an interchange between the NJTP PA spur and I-295.
Quote from: qguy on July 26, 2012, 12:45:35 PM
I agree. Of course, when the I-95/PATP interchange is built, it will provide a connection from I-95 across the river to NJ, but it won't connect with I-295. I've often wondered if that situation will eventually put pressure on the NJTA and NJDOT to provide an interchange between the NJTP PA spur and I-295.
I can't see why the pressure would be there in the future but not now. One can take the Extension to 130 North to 295, or can take the extension to the NJ Turnpike Mainline North or South to get where they're going without too much inconvenience. There are numerous options for someone to get from 95 in PA to 295 in NJ already.
Of the road and highway issues people have in NJ, this one never appears...anywhere!
Quote from: qguy on July 26, 2012, 12:45:35 PM
Quote from: Compulov on July 26, 2012, 09:21:53 AMAs someone who has taken the Burlington-Bristol Bridge to 130 to CR 541 to 295 a *lot*, I would *love* to have a freeway link across the river to 295.
I agree. Of course, when the I-95/PATP interchange is built, it will provide a connection from I-95 across the river to NJ, but it won't connect with I-295. I've often wondered if that situation will eventually put pressure on the NJTA and NJDOT to provide an interchange between the NJTP PA spur and I-295.
Potential problem there is proximity to the existing Exit 6 on the mainline Turnpike. The I-295 overpass is barely a mile to the west. I suppose, in light of that big messy interchange near Newark Airport, that it's not impossible to build another interchange there, but no doubt it would complicate matters (bear in mind that when the widening is done, Exit 6 will include more ramps than it has now due to the quad-carriageway). Perhaps the best way to do something like that might be to move the Pennsylvania Extension's toll plaza to a location between I-295 and the mainline and then, if necessary, use ramp tolls for traffic heading from I-295 towards Pennsylvania (similar to the existing setup at Exit 6A for US-130). The reason I suggest that sort of thing is that potentially if the toll plaza were located between the mainline and the new interchange it might reduce the dangerous high-speed weaving you encounter when interchanges are closely-spaced, although on the other hand you might then get kamikaze maneuvers by people trying to bomb all the way across either just before or just after the toll plaza to reach the "correct" lane or to access E-ZPass Only lanes.
Edited to add: The point "jeffandnicole" makes (make?) is right-on as well. It's only two miles from Exit 6 to Exit 7 and then it's a very short hop across to a couple of ways onto I-295 (it's easier to get to southbound I-295 there, but northbound isn't much farther). I have confess that I do not see what advantage there would be to going across to New Jersey and then north on I-295 instead of simply using I-95 to US-1 in Pennsylvania and crossing that way.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2012, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: qguy on July 26, 2012, 12:45:35 PM
Quote from: Compulov on July 26, 2012, 09:21:53 AMAs someone who has taken the Burlington-Bristol Bridge to 130 to CR 541 to 295 a *lot*, I would *love* to have a freeway link across the river to 295.
I agree. Of course, when the I-95/PATP interchange is built, it will provide a connection from I-95 across the river to NJ, but it won't connect with I-295. I've often wondered if that situation will eventually put pressure on the NJTA and NJDOT to provide an interchange between the NJTP PA spur and I-295.
Potential problem there is proximity to the existing Exit 6 on the mainline Turnpike. The I-295 overpass is barely a mile to the west. I suppose, in light of that big messy interchange near Newark Airport, that it's not impossible to build another interchange there, but no doubt it would complicate matters (bear in mind that when the widening is done, Exit 6 will include more ramps than it has now due to the quad-carriageway). Perhaps the best way to do something like that might be to move the Pennsylvania Extension's toll plaza to a location between I-295 and the mainline and then, if necessary, use ramp tolls for traffic heading from I-295 towards Pennsylvania (similar to the existing setup at Exit 6A for US-130). The reason I suggest that sort of thing is that potentially if the toll plaza were located between the mainline and the new interchange it might reduce the dangerous high-speed weaving you encounter when interchanges are closely-spaced, although on the other hand you might then get kamikaze maneuvers by people trying to bomb all the way across either just before or just after the toll plaza to reach the "correct" lane or to access E-ZPass Only lanes.
Edited to add: The point "jeffandnicole" makes (make?) is right-on as well. It's only two miles from Exit 6 to Exit 7 and then it's a very short hop across to a couple of ways onto I-295 (it's easier to get to southbound I-295 there, but northbound isn't much farther). I have confess that I do not see what advantage there would be to going across to New Jersey and then north on I-295 instead of simply using I-95 to US-1 in Pennsylvania and crossing that way.
If putting an interchange a mile away from the turnpike mainline is a problem, a physical toll plaza (not a ORT plaza) even closer to the mainline would cause many problems!
I think an interchange between the Pennsylvania Extension of the N.J. Turnpike and I-295 would be tough, tough, tough, though the land appears to possibly be available for a double-trumpet interchange.
It is awfully close to Exit 6 in any case. And is there demand for such an interchange?
My thought on toll plaza versus closely-spaced interchanges was essentially this:
(a) Exit 6 is set up as a fairly high-speed change of direction. The ramp (in the future, "ramps") from the northbound Turnpike fly over the ramp from the southbound side and then join from the right.
(b) Given where the nearby freeway-to-freeway interchanges are, and what destinations the roads serve, it seems like there ought to be more of a demand–relatively speaking–to go from the southbound Turnpike to southbound I-295 than there would be from the northbound Turnpike to either direction of I-295. (Of course I recognize that the southbound-to-southbound maneuver is EASILY served by the existing Exit 7!)
(c) That means that you either have to build an auxiliary ramp off to one side for southbound traffic to bypass the merging northbound traffic, or else have the traffic coming from the southbound ramp to the Pennsylvania Extension cut across the traffic coming from the northbound ramp to the Extension while all said vehicles are moving at full speed. The latter seems undesirable.
(d) Alternatively, you just throw a toll plaza across the road and make everyone slow down big-time. The lane-changing and cutting across seems like it would be less hazardous at slower speeds like that, although I suppose there's a good counterpoint that having drivers distracted by trying to get over for their exit while approaching a toll plaza is undesirable too. Either way, having a toll plaza in close proximity to ramp splits and the like is hardly unusual on the Turnpike, although it's probably fair to assume that most of the toll plazas were built in a different era and likely do not comply with modern standards for such things. The one that most readily comes to my mind is Exit 10 for I-287 and NJ-440 to the Outerbridge Crossing as I've used that interchange many times on trips to Brooklyn. You have to sort yourself out right quick after passing through the plaza. I suppose traffic is already moving a lot slower when encountering that plaza than would be the case at Exit 6, of course.
I suppose we're getting into "Fictional Highways" territory here.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2012, 02:18:02 PM
I suppose we're getting into "Fictional Highways" territory here.
Yeah, sorry to derail things. I just think it'd be nice that if there's already one half of the freeway link being built (or in the future, built), that the other half ought to be there. I suppose taking 130N to CR 656 to 295 would probably be better than the way I usually go, but still... I'll keep quiet (or move the discussion over to Fictional Highways).
Quote from: Compulov on July 26, 2012, 03:22:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2012, 02:18:02 PM
I suppose we're getting into "Fictional Highways" territory here.
Yeah, sorry to derail things. I just think it'd be nice that if there's already one half of the freeway link being built (or in the future, built), that the other half ought to be there. I suppose taking 130N to CR 656 to 295 would probably be better than the way I usually go, but still... I'll keep quiet (or move the discussion over to Fictional Highways).
In fairness to you, I think the whole I-95 in New Jersey topic can't really be discussed without dealing with fictional highways to some extent (at least not at the present time) given the unusual situation, and it certainly does seem that if the interchange in Pennsylvania is intended as part of the "final solution" to this problem, then it's probably appropriate to address related gaps at the same time.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 26, 2012, 01:04:15 PM
Quote from: qguy on July 26, 2012, 12:45:35 PM
I agree. Of course, when the I-95/PATP interchange is built, it will provide a connection from I-95 across the river to NJ, but it won't connect with I-295. I've often wondered if that situation will eventually put pressure on the NJTA and NJDOT to provide an interchange between the NJTP PA spur and I-295.
I can't see why the pressure would be there in the future but not now. One can take the Extension to 130 North to 295, or can take the extension to the NJ Turnpike Mainline North or South to get where they're going without too much inconvenience. There are numerous options for someone to get from 95 in PA to 295 in NJ already.
Of the road and highway issues people have in NJ, this one never appears...anywhere!
Let's keep in mind that the current NJTP Extension interchange w/US 130 is NOT the original partial-Exit 6A interchange that dumped traffic onto a side-road (Railroad Ave.) there and only had partial access to/from the PA-side only. The current dual-trumpet-interchange was built about a decade ago and allows traffic from the mainline Turnpike to connect w/US 130. The main toll plaza was relocated east of its original location when the new interchange was built.
My guess regarding the rationale to upgrading the US 130 interchange vs. building a new interchange w/I-295 back then was a case of one can do only one but not the other. 295's proximity to the current Penn Toll Plaza to the west and the Turnpike's Exit 6 (being upgraded for dual-carriage ramps to the north as I'm typing this) to the east makes placing a dual-trumpet interchange a bit of a squeeze.
And since NJDOT
already relocated that toll plaza once nearly a decade ago; I don't think there are any plans to relocate it once again between I-295 and the mainline Turnpike.
Anyway, somebody wanting to go to/from the Turnpike from/to I-295 still have several options: Exit 7A/5 (via I-195 to/from Exit 60), Exit 7/56 (via Rising Sun & Connector Roads) and Exit 6A - 52B (via County Route 656/Florence-Coulumbus Blvd.) being three that are within close proximity to the PA Extension.
There is very much a dose of "if we build a direct connection to 295, more traffic will use it" - the fact that the Exits 7-52 link is hardly overburdened notwithstanding.
Quote from: Steve on July 26, 2012, 07:04:09 PM
There is very much a dose of "if we build a direct connection to 295, more traffic will use it" - the fact that the Exits 7-52 link is hardly overburdened notwithstanding.
There are few anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility arguments that get more under my skin than the one that cites "induced" demand. Especially when the supposed "induced" demand is for a road that is tolled.
Having said that, in my opinion at least, the I-295 and N.J. Turnpike mainline (south of Interchange 6) works well, though that
may be unintentional. The longer (through) trip lengths are on the Turnpike, and the shorter (local) trip lengths are on I-295. Rather like some other local/express lanes in various places (though not really including the "dual-dual" portions of the N.J. Turnpike itself), since there is always (I think - correct me if I am wrong) access to the "car" and "truck" lanes at every interchange and at every service plaza.
Now if New Jersey legislators would just allow a higher speed limit (say, 75 MPH) on most of the Turnpike.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2012, 07:28:07 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 26, 2012, 07:04:09 PM
There is very much a dose of "if we build a direct connection to 295, more traffic will use it" - the fact that the Exits 7-52 link is hardly overburdened notwithstanding.
There are few anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility arguments that get more under my skin than the one that cites "induced" demand. Especially when the supposed "induced" demand is for a road that is tolled.
Not what I was getting at. I was referring to the idea that more current Turnpike users will shunpike from Interchanges 1-6 if the connection is improved.
Quote from: Steve on July 26, 2012, 07:49:25 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2012, 07:28:07 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 26, 2012, 07:04:09 PM
There is very much a dose of "if we build a direct connection to 295, more traffic will use it" - the fact that the Exits 7-52 link is hardly overburdened notwithstanding.
There are few anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility arguments that get more under my skin than the one that cites "induced" demand. Especially when the supposed "induced" demand is for a road that is tolled.
Not what I was getting at. I was referring to the idea that more current Turnpike users will shunpike from Interchanges 1-6 if the connection is improved.
O.K.
Well, in a sense that could be a form of "induced" demand as well. <smile>
Though I suspect that most people are not going to bother with shunpiking (at least I don't), unless the Turnpike has some sort of incident - or there is recurring southbound congestion approaching Exit 1, which
still happens sometimes with the new toll plaza, because there is not enough queue space for vehicles paying cash.
When I-95 is complete, there may be some shunpiking that way, though I think one or two trips through Philadelphia congestion might make people stay on the Pike after they experience a congested Delaware Expressway.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2012, 07:28:07 PM
There are few anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility arguments that get more under my skin than the one that cites "induced" demand.
I'll keep that in mind.
Quote from: YankeesFan on July 25, 2012, 07:37:15 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2012, 12:10:02 PM
YankeesFan: as long as x95 is an even number, it will always represent a loop around a city. Thus, whether it's 295 or 695, the goal is accomplished of designating the NJTP a bypass. And there would be no reason to change exisiting 295 to 695, which would involve changing directions related to about 40 different interchanges in the 67 mile span of 295 alone! The hassle would be tremendously not worth it!
i think you need to go back and read my posts...this isn't what i said.
Then I apologize...although I still don't see the reason why the turnpike couldn't just get another x95 number besides 295! :-)
Actually, my 'dream' connction (yeah, that's not a lead-in to a fictional highway story) would be to create ramps to/from the turnpike North of Interchange 4 on the Turnpike, and between Exits 36 (NJ 73) & 40 (NJ 38) on I-295. In this area, the distance between highways is non-existant (in fact, I'm pretty sure there's no private lane between the Turnpike & 295 for a short stretch). This connection would be for both directions. This would allow traffic to easily switch between both roadways. Since 295 congests on a regular basis between Exits 36 (Rt. 73) and 26 (Rt. 42/I-76), this will allow traffic to bypass that congestion. Or, traffic can come south on the Turnpike and come over to 295 to access the many interchanges one finds on 295.
Similiarly, traffic going North on 295 or the Turnpike could cross over to the other road for any of several reasons.
This would be much more useful than an interchange at 295 & the NJ/PA Tpk Extension!
Quote from: Steve on July 26, 2012, 07:04:09 PM
There is very much a dose of "if we build a direct connection to 295, more traffic will use it" - the fact that the Exits 7-52 link is hardly overburdened notwithstanding.
BTW, I think you mean Exit 7 - 56 link. Exit 52 is the Columbus Exit off 295.
When I initiated discussion of an interchange between the NJTP PA spur and I-295, I suspected I'd kick up a lot of mentions of the proximity between any interchange and the mainline. But I wanted to see what everyone's thinking was, without pushing the discussion in a particular direction. I agree that it would be awfully hard, if not impossible, to design and construct a workable interchange at that location.
I like jefandnicole's idea, though. I think the case could be made that it would attract at least as many drivers to the NJTP, probably more, as shunpiking would siphon off.
I think the first priority ought to be connecting the Turnpike to NJ 42/Atlantic City Expressway. That will also give you the connectivity to 295 and 76 at that interchange. Given how bad 42 is, though, it's unlikely to do too much, but at least there are relatively easy connections right now between Tpk and 295, but not so for 42. As for 73/38 area, Fellowship Rd. with a lot of development is between the two. There are a few other points where the highways are right next to each other.
And there are still missing movements between I-295 and NJ 42. You can't travel from NB 295 to SB 42 or from NB 42 to SB 295. A project to fix this had been in design at NJDOT, but has since been deferred.
I agree that there are a lot of goofy things in and around the Philadelphia metro area, the fix for any one of which would be very helpful and perhaps a higher priority.
Quote from: qguy on July 28, 2012, 10:00:16 AM
And there are still missing movements between I-295 and NJ 42. You can't travel from NB 295 to SB 42 or from NB 42 to SB 295. A project to fix this had been in design at NJDOT, but has since been deferred.
Actually, it is coming down the pipe. First they're doing reconstruction of the 42/295 interchange, but the Missing Moves are going in right after. They settled on a design that passes north of the landfill. Because 42/295 has already passed final design (and is in fact getting underway now!), Missing Moves aren't going to be added to it. I know it would be nice to construct simultaneously, but it's more important to just break ground and get working.
You induced me to check the 295 project website and sure enough! I hadn't noticed that they changed the PDF of the selected alternative. The last time I looked at it, it had the older planned configuration of the missing moves (the green-shaded connections). Sneaky devils.
[Edited to avoid double-posting.]
I also notice that PennDOT and the PTC aren't the only agencies who can really stretch out a project. I remember attending a public information meeting on the 295/42 project back in the late 90s and I see from the contracts PDF that construction is projected to wrap up in 2021. Not nearly as bad as the PATP/I-95 project, but still.
They updated the routing of the missing moves on the PDF, but not the thumbnail graphic!
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt295/shortlist-alternatives_mapD.shtm
What was the big deal over cutting through the landfill? Either way, there were be a weaving problem on 42 between these new ramps and 55. That section of roadway is already a choke point.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 28, 2012, 02:34:20 PM
They updated the routing of the missing moves on the PDF, but not the thumbnail graphic!
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt295/shortlist-alternatives_mapD.shtm
What was the big deal over cutting through the landfill? Either way, there were be a weaving problem on 42 between these new ramps and 55. That section of roadway is already a choke point.
I don't want to give too much away of what I actually know, but here's what I can tell you - the DOT can't take the landfill until it's capped. I don't know WHY that is, but rather than wait, they just took other property instead.
Quote from: Steve on July 28, 2012, 03:40:07 PM
I don't want to give too much away of what I actually know, but here's what I can tell you - the DOT can't take the landfill until it's capped. I don't know WHY that is, but rather than wait, they just took other property instead.
Building a highway over a landfill is a non-starter, since garbage typically can't be compacted enough to provide a firm base for a highway. Relocating hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of garbage to somewhere else would be quite difficult if not impossible, as well as very expensive.
With respect to the lack of interchange between I-95 and I-295 on the PA Turnpike Extension in NJ --
The northerly movements already exist via the NJ I-195 connection to I-295, an Interstate grade connection.
The southerly movements seem low priority if needed at all, because of the sharp skew between the two highways, would mean very little traffic would use that.
Quote from: Steve on July 27, 2012, 07:25:32 PM
I think the first priority ought to be connecting the Turnpike to NJ 42/Atlantic City Expressway.
I strongly agree. That missing connection (in my opinion) qualifies as a breezewood. In a sense, it's
even worse than a breezewood, since there is no connection at all - rather like the (current) non-connection between I-95 and the E-W mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Quote from: Steve on July 27, 2012, 07:25:32 PM
That will also give you the connectivity to 295 and 76 at that interchange. Given how bad 42 is, though, it's unlikely to do too much, but at least there are relatively easy connections right now between Tpk and 295, but not so for 42. As for 73/38 area, Fellowship Rd. with a lot of development is between the two. There are a few other points where the highways are right next to each other.
It would seem to me that an elevated trumpet-trumpet interchange might work to connect the Turnpike and N.J. 42. It would be expensive, but not impossible, to build - though I am not at all certain how to handle the connection to/from N.J. 55.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 28, 2012, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 27, 2012, 07:25:32 PM
I think the first priority ought to be connecting the Turnpike to NJ 42/Atlantic City Expressway.
I strongly agree. That missing connection (in my opinion) qualifies as a breezewood. In a sense, it's even worse than a breezewood, since there is no connection at all - rather like the (current) non-connection between I-95 and the E-W mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
There is a connection, albeit several miles via NJ-168. A surface road...
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2012, 07:28:07 PM
Now if New Jersey legislators would just allow a higher speed limit (say, 75 MPH) on most of the Turnpike.
You mean it's not 75 already? Every time I've driven it, it's been my experience that you'll get run over by faster traffic if you drive 75.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2012, 10:49:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2012, 07:28:07 PM
Now if New Jersey legislators would just allow a higher speed limit (say, 75 MPH) on most of the Turnpike.
You mean it's not 75 already? Every time I've driven it, it's been my experience that you'll get run over by faster traffic if you drive 75.
The design speed was supposedly 80 MPH when the Turnpike was built. So it should probably be higher now.
But officially, it is only 65 MPH.
And pretty strictly enforced, at least south of Exit 6 (this may be only because enforcement is much more visible on the (relatively-speaking narrow segment of the Turnpike).
Quote from: Steve on July 28, 2012, 03:40:07 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 28, 2012, 02:34:20 PM
They updated the routing of the missing moves on the PDF, but not the thumbnail graphic!
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt295/shortlist-alternatives_mapD.shtm
What was the big deal over cutting through the landfill? Either way, there were be a weaving problem on 42 between these new ramps and 55. That section of roadway is already a choke point.
I don't want to give too much away of what I actually know, but here's what I can tell you - the DOT can't take the landfill until it's capped. I don't know WHY that is, but rather than wait, they just took other property instead.
There was a similar problem with the US 6 freeway from Scranton, PA, to Carbondale (origianlly known as the Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway or LVIH, but changed to the Casey Highway upon completion, in honor of the late governor) when it was being built in the late 90s.
In the path of the initially planned alignment is a landfill. The alignment was ultimately shifted to the east. On a map or aerial image, you can see where the alignment "bulges" around the landfill between the I-81/84/380/US 6 interchange and the first exit on the US 6 freeway (at Marshwood Rd.).
I don't know about cheaper, but it was significantly easier to move the road than construct it through the landfill. The landfill would had to have been excavated and the refuse would had to have been relocated. This would've reqired an extensive, time-consuming, and costly permitting process. The entire headache was avoided by shifting the alignment. Fortunately, becasue of a lack of development in the immediate are, that was an option in this case.
As far as the missing moves are concerned, I don't think they're waiting until the 295/76/42 construction is finished. That project's 1st (of 4) construction contracts is going out to bid soon, but the last contract won't finish construction until 2020. I believe the missing moves project is supposed to go out to bid in FY2014, with construction finishing in 2016.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2012, 09:15:52 AM
But officially, it is only 65 MPH.
And pretty strictly enforced, at least south of Exit 6 (this may be only because enforcement is much more visible on the (relatively-speaking narrow segment of the Turnpike).
I'm going to go with this is the most laughable post of the day.
I'm not sure how often you ride the turnpike, where you may have heard this from or if this is just your opinion, but the 65 mph limit is most definitely not strictly enforced below Interchange 6. I, along with regular and everyday users of the turnpike, will attest to that as well.
As far as enforcement is much more visible - yes, you are correct in that department. And yes, it may cause some motorists to think that way. But I can tell you first hand, many times, that they are not looking for people going just a minor bit over the speed limit. In fact, the police you see many not even be looking for speeders!
The only place where I've routinely encountered speed limit enforcement on the New Jersey Turnpike over the years has been northbound at milepost 15.8. You crest a small hill and there's a sort of dirt driveway into the trees where the cop sits facing traffic running always-on X-band. I've seen cops there often enough that on a trip north a few years back when my brother was driving and we didn't have the detector with us I suggested he slow down and sure enough, there was the cop. The guy behind us was PISSED when we slowed and then afterwards drove up next to us with an apologetic look on his face.
I've been passed by cops on the Turnpike when I was doing 75 mph and that was in the days before they posted any 65-mph limits (early 1990s).
what are the overtly visible cops looking for, then? people with a particular vehicle description as reported previously, in possible connection with a recently committed crime?
Or people texting while driving - that's what the NY state troopers are currently targeting at least.
I'm not particularly sure offhand what they are looking for. They used to sit about 3 miles south of Interchange 3 because of an emergency access gate that was usually kept open (just off of NJ 47). It was a pretty easy stop - cars would slow down on the shoulder to pull off the highway, and just as they were about ready to make their turn towards the gate, the cop would be sitting there in the clearing. How easy of a stop is that - the guy they want has already slowed to about 15 mph to make that right turn. Not much to do besides activate the lights. At that point, the law-breaker might as well pull up to the cop to make things easier!
I've also seen them at the top of the ramp to/from the State Police building and maintenance yard about 3 miles North of Interchange 4, as well as the ramp to the maintainance yard about a 1/2 mile North of Interchange 2. In that case, I watched in front of a car pull up to the ramp, and suddenly stopped! He saw the cop, and was a dead duck. The cop came down and met the car right there as I passed by.
I've yet to figure out what they're doing on that maintenance ramp near Interchange 4. I've never seen a cop leave the "perch" up there, and I know there are cars passing at over 80 mph. Maybe they're waiting for someone going over 90...or looking for a quick exit like described above.
In addition to cell phone usage (which is all the rage now), from that perch they could be looking for tailgaters, headlights not working properly, or any number of violations that can be spotted. I forget where I saw the stat from, but in NJ at least, the number of tickets issued for speeding was relatively low.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 30, 2012, 10:41:38 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2012, 09:15:52 AM
But officially, it is only 65 MPH.
And pretty strictly enforced, at least south of Exit 6 (this may be only because enforcement is much more visible on the (relatively-speaking narrow segment of the Turnpike).
I'm going to go with this is the most laughable post of the day.
I'm not sure how often you ride the turnpike, where you may have heard this from or if this is just your opinion, but the 65 mph limit is most definitely not strictly enforced below Interchange 6. I, along with regular and everyday users of the turnpike, will attest to that as well.
As far as enforcement is much more visible - yes, you are correct in that department. And yes, it may cause some motorists to think that way. But I can tell you first hand, many times, that they are not looking for people going just a minor bit over the speed limit. In fact, the police you see many not even be looking for speeders!
I would agree with jeffandnicole. Infact, it's because the cops are so lax on speed enforcement why I often opt to take the turnpike instead of 295 when I'm headed south. The fastest that I ever went past a parked trooper was 80. I was in the right lane and being overtaken as we passed by the cop. The trooper never even pulled out to go after the car passing me.
Quote from: signalman on July 30, 2012, 03:04:25 PM
I would agree with jeffandnicole. Infact, it's because the cops are so lax on speed enforcement why I often opt to take the turnpike instead of 295 when I'm headed south. The fastest that I ever went past a parked trooper was 80. I was in the right lane and being overtaken as we passed by the cop. The trooper never even pulled out to go after the car passing me.
FWIW, in my experience of having been pulled over on several occasions by NJ's finest (in my slightly younger years), they will give you 14 mph in a 65 zone. I've done 79 past troopers on numerous occasions, stopped at 80 (and given a warning) and given a ticket at 81. So at 80, he might just not have wanted to bother (and maybe all his radar locked on was you, so he can only assume the fastest the other guy was going was 80). Hopefully I didn't just jinx myself....
Oh, and I dunno why, but on both the Turnpike and the Parkway, I've found their tolerances to be even higher... maybe the NJTA doesn't want to discourage people from taking their toll roads... since I think they fund the troopers on those roads, they might have some say in how they enforce traffic laws.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 30, 2012, 10:41:38 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2012, 09:15:52 AM
But officially, it is only 65 MPH.
And pretty strictly enforced, at least south of Exit 6 (this may be only because enforcement is much more visible on the (relatively-speaking narrow segment of the Turnpike).
I'm going to go with this is the most laughable post of the day.
Based on what I have seen (and that's usually driving the Turnpike on weekends).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 30, 2012, 10:41:38 AM
I'm not sure how often you ride the turnpike, where you may have heard this from or if this is just your opinion, but the 65 mph limit is most definitely not strictly enforced below Interchange 6. I, along with regular and everyday users of the turnpike, will attest to that as well.
I probably don't drive it as often as you do - three or four times a year, that's all.
But especially southbound, at the "exits" to the Turnpike maintenance facilities, I have seen the NJSP out there with radar or laser sets, measuring speed of passing vehicles and stopping those that were breaking the posted limit (by a lot). Now I have never been stopped, so I do not know if the stops lead to warnings or tickets.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 30, 2012, 10:41:38 AM
As far as enforcement is much more visible - yes, you are correct in that department. And yes, it may cause some motorists to think that way. But I can tell you first hand, many times, that they are not looking for people going just a minor bit over the speed limit. In fact, the police you see many not even be looking for speeders!
When I drive the Turnpike, I
always observe one or two traffic stops between 1 and 6. More than on the JFK Highway in Md. More than the Delaware Turnpike.
Quote from: Compulov on July 30, 2012, 08:30:42 PM
Hopefully I didn't just jinx myself.... Oh, and I dunno why, but on both the Turnpike and the Parkway, I've found their tolerances to be even higher... maybe the NJTA doesn't want to discourage people from taking their toll roads... since I think they fund the troopers on those roads, they might have some say in how they enforce traffic laws.
It's pretty common practice that toll roads fund the cost of the law enforcement activities that take place on their property. And that's clearly the case in New Jersey. I believe I read someplace that the New Jersey Turnpike Authority even procures police cars to NJSP specifications for the troopers that patrol the Turnpike and the Parkway.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 12:35:52 PM
what are the overtly visible cops looking for, then? people with a particular vehicle description as reported previously, in possible connection with a recently committed crime?
One
guess would be potential drug traffickers. Parts of I-95 have been referred to as
Cocaine Lane for that reason.
While much of the Turnpike is NOT I-95; that doesn't mean that drug traffickers don't use the road.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2012, 08:27:37 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 12:35:52 PM
what are the overtly visible cops looking for, then? people with a particular vehicle description as reported previously, in possible connection with a recently committed crime?
One guess would be potential drug traffickers. Parts of I-95 have been referred to as Cocaine Lane for that reason.
While much of the Turnpike is NOT I-95; that doesn't mean that drug traffickers don't use the road.
Agreed on all points. Law enforcement
do make some (often well-publicized) drug busts along the I-95 corridor.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2012, 08:27:37 AMOne guess would be potential drug traffickers. Parts of I-95 have been referred to as Cocaine Lane for that reason.
While much of the Turnpike is NOT I-95; that doesn't mean that drug traffickers don't use the road.
how do police get probable cause?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2012, 01:09:04 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2012, 08:27:37 AMOne guess would be potential drug traffickers. Parts of I-95 have been referred to as Cocaine Lane for that reason.
While much of the Turnpike is NOT I-95; that doesn't mean that drug traffickers don't use the road.
how do police get probable cause?
By observing the driver make one or more violation(s) of traffic law(s).
That makes a traffic stop legal. That also makes it legal for a trained dog to sniff the exterior of the vehicle, and if the dog "alerts," then they cops have all the probable cause they need.
Posts about driving in New Jersey (and elsewhere) have been moved to Off-Topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=9.0).
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7382.0