I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[PHLBOS]

The I-76/42 one particularly makes no sense, they should've just grandfathered 42 into the Interstate system along with the ACE (though I realize the ACE is actually a little younger than that).

Such has been tossed about in this forum for quite some time.  IIRC, this is the reason why the ACE won't receive an Instate designation anytime soon.  IIRC, Interstates typically require higher clearances for the majority of overpasses.

NJ 29/I-195 has to happen that way since NJ 29 downgrades.  If they had built it to full freeway standards from I-95 to I-295 as had once been imagined, or at least straight to US 1, then they could've extended I-195 further, but it would still have to end somewhere.

Prior to the completion of the NJ 29 Freeway & tunnel, some maps erroneously showed the proposed dashes with an I-195 shield.  If such was fully built to the Scudder Falls Bridge during the 1980s; that (along w/I-195 west of the NJ Turnpike) may have been a possible alternative I-95 routing.

I would hope the 95 S to 295 E/295 W to 95 N ramps get built sooner, but obviously, I'm not sure the PTC really cares one way or the other when the rest gets done.

And that will certainly be a (recurring) discussion on these boards for years to come (right up there w/Breezwood).

[jeffandnicole]

I also definitely had nothing to do with this webpage which was created many years ago.
http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/Interstate_95_Gap.html

Then you, of all people, should know that highways sometimes do change numbers when going through interchanges.  In addition to the fore-mentioned I-287/NJ 440 example there's:
I-76/NJ 42
I-195/NJ 29
I-495/MA 25 (originally, this handoff was to occur at the I-95/495 interchange in Mansfield)
I-195/MD 166
I-264/I-664 in VA
There's probably some others but you get the idea.

NJ 29/I-195 has to happen that way since NJ 29 downgrades.  If they had built it to full freeway standards from I-95 to I-295 as had once been imagined, or at least straight to US 1, then they could've extended I-195 further, but it would still have to end somewhere.

Being that NJ had interest in downgrading NJ 29 from a highway to an urban blvd., they definitely won't be upgrading it anytime soon!  Thankfully those plans seemed to have evaporated for now.

Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.

For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.

2.  The I-195 extension would've forced an unnecessary redesign/modification of the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange; especially to the would-be-through I-195 movements being single-lane ramps (through I-195 East would use the current Exit 60A cloverleaf ramp).

It wouldn't have forced anything - those ramps would've remained 1 lane ramps.  If the temporary routing of I-95 from 295 South to 195 East didn't force them to rebuild that ramp, a simple numbering change wouldn't have done it either!

Here's a neat idea... after the 95/276 interchange is complete, extend I-295 westward along the PA Turnpike and then south along the Blue Route.  Then it would be an almost complete beltway.

Not a bad idea per say, but such would only work if the remaining additional ramps at the Delaware Expressway/PA Turnpike interchange were actually built.  Something tells me that the ramps to/from I-276 west of the interchange to I-295 will likely be the last ones built because one does have an-all-highway routing for those two movements between I-276 & I-295 via US 1.

Fair point.  I would hope the 95 S to 295 E/295 W to 95 N ramps get built sooner, but obviously, I'm not sure the PTC really cares one way or the other when the rest gets done.  They definitely didn't care about getting even this much done, considering its taken 36 years.

Also with a beltway idea, it would be a loop involving I-476, I-95, US 322, US 130, I-295, and I-476, with numerous one-lane ramps to keep it somewhat continuous.  It wouldn't make any sense to most travelers that it functions like a beltway.

[PHLBOS]

Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.

For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.

2.  The I-195 extension would've forced might trigger an unnecessary redesign/modification of the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange down the road; especially to the would-be-through I-195 movements being single-lane ramps (through I-195 East would use the current Exit 60A cloverleaf ramp).

It wouldn't have forced anything - those ramps would've remained 1 lane ramps.  If the temporary routing of I-95 from 295 South to 195 East didn't force them to rebuild that ramp, a simple numbering change wouldn't have done it either!

Perhaps (and I've reworded my previous post as shown above), but for the record; that Temporary routing of I-95 (more like some TO 95 signage along I-195 & 295) was never fully marked as such, especially for I-95 southbound with respect to the NJ Turnpike.  To this day, I-95 signage at Exit 7A/I-195 (even beyond the toll plaza) is non-existent.  Heck only recent post-toll-plaza signage has a TO 295 legend placed on the I-195 westbound ramp signage.  Previous-generation signage did not include such.

[Beltway]

I can't say I know much about two more of those, but the I-264/I-664 one also makes no sense to me currently (I think it made sense once upon a time, but I don't recall the details).

I-64 and I-264 and I-664 terminate at that interchange.   There was VDOT and local brainstorming in the 1990s about how to change that, but the other options would have also caused multiple 3-way Interstate junctions, so there would have been nothing gained by changing it.

[famartin]

I can't say I know much about two more of those, but the I-264/I-664 one also makes no sense to me currently (I think it made sense once upon a time, but I don't recall the details).

I-64 and I-264 and I-664 terminate at that interchange.   There was VDOT and local brainstorming in the 1990s about how to change that, but the other options would have also caused multiple 3-way Interstate junctions, so there would have been nothing gained by changing it.

While it might've caused other three way junctions, it would've avoided a three way termination, so I think something could've been gained...

[famartin]

Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.

For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.

2.  The I-195 extension would've forced might trigger an unnecessary redesign/modification of the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange down the road; especially to the would-be-through I-195 movements being single-lane ramps (through I-195 East would use the current Exit 60A cloverleaf ramp).

It wouldn't have forced anything - those ramps would've remained 1 lane ramps.  If the temporary routing of I-95 from 295 South to 195 East didn't force them to rebuild that ramp, a simple numbering change wouldn't have done it either!

Perhaps (and I've reworded my previous post as shown above), but for the record; that Temporary routing of I-95 (more like some TO 95 signage along I-195 & 295) was never fully marked as such, especially for I-95 southbound with respect to the NJ Turnpike.  To this day, I-95 signage at Exit 7A/I-195 (even beyond the toll plaza) is non-existent.  Heck only recent post-toll-plaza signage has a TO 295 legend placed on the I-195 westbound ramp signage.  Previous-generation signage did not include such.

We all know why no one has ever signed the way to connect to I-95 southbound... its because the NJ Turnpike wanted to keep its customers.  The only real reason the "To 95 north" signs existed was so that people who got lost on their way up 95 would find their way back... to the turnpike. 

Another thought I had was that PennDOT and NJDOT/NJTA could've forced PTC to get this fixed faster.  Instead of truncating 95 just recently, they could've truncated it back in 1982 after the legislation was signed, and PennDOT could've signed the connection to the turnpike via 413 as the way to find 95 north.  The NJTA could've signed Exit 6 as 95 south back in 1982, as well.  That would've quickly overloaded the connection.  Though, maybe it also would've created a second Breezewood.

[PHLBOS]

We all know why no one has ever signed the way to connect to I-95 southbound... its because the NJ Turnpike wanted to keep its customers.

What are they going to do this coming Sept. 24 and afterwards?

Another thought I had was that PennDOT and NJDOT/NJTA could've forced PTC to get this fixed faster.

While one could argue that PennDOT could've leaned on the PTC more; NJDOT & NJTA have no authority whatsoever to dictate what a toll agency in another state can do.  Since closing/fixing the I-95 Gap was more of a federal mandate; the feds should've been the ones to push the PTC more. 

Instead of truncating 95 just recently, they could've truncated it back in 1982 after the legislation was signed, and PennDOT could've signed the connection to the turnpike via 413 as the way to find 95 north.  The NJTA could've signed Exit 6 as 95 south back in 1982, as well.  That would've quickly overloaded the connection.  Though, maybe it also would've created a second Breezewood.

As one who's used that routing many times prior to the completion of I-295/195 as well as the adoption of one-way tolling across the Delaware circa the mid-1990s; such would've been a monumental traffic nightmare/bottleneck.  I'm not 100% sure on this but I believe that Federal law prohibits the use of non-highways as alternate"TO" Interstate route connections if there's another nearby highway/freeway available (even if such routing is a longer distance).  Prior to 1994, the temporary/alternate routing between the two I-95s in NJ was via US 1 (& a small section of I-287, that was once slated to be I-95); the US 1 Northbound ramp signage at the I-295 interchange one had a TO 95 New York legend on it.  Such might've been the reasoning behind the moving of the I-95/295 handoff 4 miles to the east (thereby increasing I-95 mileage in NJ).

Additionally, and such has been stated multiple times at nauseam on the previous pages of this thread, I-295 east of Trenton (as well as the western part of I-195) was still incomplete when the I-95 re-routing decision was made.  Those gaps wouldn't be closed until some 12 years later.  I could see NJ truncating I-95 to the Scudder Falls Bridge once I-295 was fully complete but that's about it.

[Beltway]

I-64 and I-264 and I-664 terminate at that interchange.   There was VDOT and local brainstorming in the 1990s about how to change that, but the other options would have also caused multiple 3-way Interstate junctions, so there would have been nothing gained by changing it.

While it might've caused other three way junctions, it would've avoided a three way termination, so I think something could've been gained...

Current I-64/I-464 would become a three way termination, or current Norfolk I-264/I-64 would become a three way termination if I-64 was routed to the beachfront, or current Hampton I-64/I-664 which is a three-leg interchange would have I-664 on two legs and I-64 on one leg.

The last would remove I-64 from Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and (very near) Portsmouth, something that those cities had since 1968, and didn't want to lose.

[famartin]

We all know why no one has ever signed the way to connect to I-95 southbound... its because the NJ Turnpike wanted to keep its customers.

What are they going to do this coming Sept. 24 and afterwards?

Another thought I had was that PennDOT and NJDOT/NJTA could've forced PTC to get this fixed faster.

While one could argue that PennDOT could've leaned on the PTC more; NJDOT & NJTA have no authority whatsoever to dictate what a toll agency in another state can do.  Since closing/fixing the I-95 Gap was more of a federal mandate; the feds should've been the ones to push the PTC more. 

Instead of truncating 95 just recently, they could've truncated it back in 1982 after the legislation was signed, and PennDOT could've signed the connection to the turnpike via 413 as the way to find 95 north.  The NJTA could've signed Exit 6 as 95 south back in 1982, as well.  That would've quickly overloaded the connection.  Though, maybe it also would've created a second Breezewood.

As one who's used that routing many times prior to the completion of I-295/195 as well as the adoption of one-way tolling across the Delaware circa the mid-1990s; such would've been a monumental traffic nightmare/bottleneck.  I'm not 100% sure on this but I believe that Federal law prohibits the use of non-highways as alternate"TO" Interstate route connections if there's another nearby highway/freeway available (even if such routing is a longer distance).  Prior to 1994, the temporary/alternate routing between the two I-95s in NJ was via US 1 (& a small section of I-287, that was once slated to be I-95); the US 1 Northbound ramp signage at the I-295 interchange one had a TO 95 New York legend on it.  Such might've been the reasoning behind the moving of the I-95/295 handoff 4 miles to the east (thereby increasing I-95 mileage in NJ).

Additionally, and such has been stated multiple times at nauseam on the previous pages of this thread, I-295 east of Trenton (as well as the western part of I-195) was still incomplete when the I-95 re-routing decision was made.  Those gaps wouldn't be closed until some 12 years later.  I could see NJ truncating I-95 to the Scudder Falls Bridge once I-295 was fully complete but that's about it.

You miss my point.  The idea WAS to force the creation of a bottleneck.  That would've forced PTC's hand to get it fixed properly.  Technically PennDOT, NJDOT and NJTA wouldn't be forcing PTC to do anything, but they'd be making a mess that PTC would want to fix. PTC couldn't force PennDOT, NJDOT or NJTA to sign things THEIR way just as is the case likewise, so if they had banded together and signed all the existing I-95 as legislated, then signed a connection via 413 and 13 as TO 95, PTC wouldn't have been able to stop them.

The federal law, I wasn't aware of, though it depends on whether a "highway" is adequate or if it must be "freeway".  Based on that law, you could argue that I-68/79 should be signed as "TO 70" to avoid the mess in Breezewood.

[famartin]

I-64 and I-264 and I-664 terminate at that interchange.   There was VDOT and local brainstorming in the 1990s about how to change that, but the other options would have also caused multiple 3-way Interstate junctions, so there would have been nothing gained by changing it.

While it might've caused other three way junctions, it would've avoided a three way termination, so I think something could've been gained...

Current I-64/I-464 would become a three way termination, or current Norfolk I-264/I-64 would become a three way termination if I-64 was routed to the beachfront, or current Hampton I-64/I-664 which is a three-leg interchange would have I-664 on two legs and I-64 on one leg.

The last would remove I-64 from Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and (very near) Portsmouth, something that those cities had since 1968, and didn't want to lose.

I guess I didn't realize there was some I-64 love going on there, but I-64's current bend backwards is pretty stupid IMHO.  That portion from 264 southwestward should be 664.

[Beltway]

I guess I didn't realize there was some I-64 love going on there, but I-64's current bend backwards is pretty stupid IMHO.  That portion from 264 southwestward should be 664.

No "love" just the usual interest in major cities to have a mainline Interstate route.

I-664 was one of the 1968 additions to the Interstate system, when I-64 was built there was no plan for any Interstate connection at Bowers Hill.  The final segment of I-64 throughout the Hampton Roads area was completed in 1976.  I-664 wasn't completed until 1992.  That is why the renumbering study was conducted in the 1990s.  After 22 years of I-64 being as it is, would take a lot of justification for making major route number changes.

[PHLBOS]

You miss my point.  The idea WAS to force the creation of a bottleneck.  That would've forced PTC's hand to get it fixed properly.  Technically PennDOT, NJDOT and NJTA wouldn't be forcing PTC to do anything, but they'd be making a mess that PTC would want to fix. PTC couldn't force PennDOT, NJDOT or NJTA to sign things THEIR way just as is the case likewise, so if they had banded together and signed all the existing I-95 as legislated, then signed a connection via 413 and 13 as TO 95, PTC wouldn't have been able to stop them.

No, I didn't miss your point per say; but I do believe what you were proposing has some ethics issues and could yield to engineering malpractice.

The federal law, I wasn't aware of, though it depends on whether a "highway" is adequate or if it must be "freeway".  Based on that law, you could argue that I-68/79 should be signed as "TO 70" to avoid the mess in Breezewood.

Such routing doesn't help one seeking to get to the closest stretch of I-70 between I-79 and the PA Turnpike (I-76) in New Stanton.  The purpose/idea of an alternate routing (for an "incomplete/gapped" Interstate route) is to connect one segment of the route to the next nearest segment.

On the subject of avoiding the I-70 Breezewood is concerned; IIRC, there was a sign somewhere along I-70 westbound that suggested I-68 as an alternate routing (mainly to avoid the PA Turnpike tolls moreso that the Breezewood situation) but I could not find it via GSV or Google Image Search. 

I guess I didn't realize there was some I-64 love going on there, but I-64's current bend backwards is pretty stupid IMHO.

At least I-64 where it bends backwards direction-wise is not signed with direction cardinals.  Several previous pages on this thread, it was suggested that the extended I-295 in NJ not be signed with direction cardinals.

[Roadsguy]

I threw this together to count down to the opening: http://isi95completeyet.tk/

[qguy]

Here are some pics from the Golden Spike Meet that Brian Troutman organized. All are from 13 Sep 2018 except the button.


The group photo. One of the Turnpike officials climbed up onto the top of a water tanker truck he had strategically positioned for the shot. We're on the I-95 southbound flyover, looking roughly toward the northeast.


The vanity shot of my son (Roadsguy) and me. I forget who brought the shields from their private collection (profuse apologies). It was a great touch! (Someone please claim credit or provide a shoutout.)


An overview image, the view from the I-95 southbound flyover, looking roughly toward the northest. Visible are (from left to right) the I-95 southbound flyover, the I-295 westbound carriageway, the I-295 eastbound carriageway, and the I-95 northbound flyover.


The I-95 northbound carriageway just before the beginning of the flyover, looking toward the north. For more information on the project, heed the billboard. Visible to the left of the carriageway are (from left to right) the I-95 southbound flyover, the I-295 westbound carriageway, and the I-295 eastbound carriageway. Note the enhanced mile marker at the far right.


Oooh, shiny and new! The I-95 northbound flyover, looking toward the east. The northbound flyover was almost entirely striped, while the southbound flyover wasn't striped at all yet. The roomy outer shoulder provides for safe sight distance on the curve.


The art shot. Three inches above the deck of the I-95 northbound flyover.


The I-95 northbound flyover, looking toward the east. Visible off the starboard bow are (from right to left) the westbound lanes of the PA Turnpike (I-276 here for a few more feet) and the eastbound lanes of the PA Turnpike (I-276). The local roadway visible passing under the Turnpike is PA 413, New Rogers Rd.


A little further along on the I-95 northbound flyover, looking toward the east. Visible in the distance (just right of center) is the steel arch of the Delaware River Bridge.


The I-95 northbound carriageway as it touches down from the flyover, looking toward the east. Visible in the distance is the merge from PA Turnpike (I-276) eastbound (at right) and the PA Turnpike (I-276) westbound split (at left). Also visible in the distance is the Bristol Oxford Valley Road overpass.


At the start of the I-95 southbound flyover, looking toward the west.


The I-95 southbound flyover, looking toward the east. As noted above, the northbound flyover was striped while the southbound was not.


The I-95 southbound flyover touching down, looking toward the south. Visible (from left to right) are the I-295 eastbound carriageway, the I-295 westbound carriageway, the I-95 southbound flyover, and the extended ramp entrance from the PA 413 interchange. Visible ahead is the Ford Road overpass. Note the "END I-295 BEGIN I-95" signage.


Prior to going out the project site, the group was briefed by two of the contractors.


Brian provided this button for each participant in the meet.

Outstanding meet, Brian!

[SignBridge]

Excellent photos! Thank you qguy!

So my first question: Looking east as the N/B I-95 flyover touches down, you see the signs for the upcoming exit for US 13, Levittown, Bristol. It carries the Penn. Tpke. exit number. Shouldn't that exit now have an I-95 exit number?

[Beltway]

Who is the woman in the middle ... a PTC employee?

[NE2]

Who is the woman in the middle ... a PTC employee?

Maybe it's a hen's tooth.

[jeffandnicole]

Excellent photos! Thank you qguy!

So my first question: Looking east as the N/B I-95 flyover touches down, you see the signs for the upcoming exit for US 13, Levittown, Bristol. It carries the Penn. Tpke. exit number. Shouldn't that exit now have an I-95 exit number?

That is the I-95 mileage for the exit. The current exit number is 358.

[akotchi]

Excellent photos! Thank you qguy!

So my first question: Looking east as the N/B I-95 flyover touches down, you see the signs for the upcoming exit for US 13, Levittown, Bristol. It carries the Penn. Tpke. exit number. Shouldn't that exit now have an I-95 exit number?

The 358 is an overlay of the I-95 exit, 42.  I looked at one of the signs up close in one of my passes-by a couple of weeks ago.

Thanks for posting the pictures, qguy.  I was the one that provided the shields.

The two women in the office photo work in the project office -- not sure if direct PTC employees or employed by one of the CM consultants.

[qguy]

Who is the woman in the middle ... a PTC employee?

If you mean in the group photo, that's the wife of one of the participants.

[qguy]

I was the one that provided the shields.

Thanks for bringing them. Made for a fantastic group photo.

[SignBridge]

Thanks akotchi. That's the answer I was hoping for.

[wanderer2575]

On the subject of avoiding the I-70 Breezewood is concerned; IIRC, there was a sign somewhere along I-70 westbound that suggested I-68 as an alternate routing (mainly to avoid the PA Turnpike tolls moreso that the Breezewood situation) but I could not find it via GSV or Google Image Search. 

It's still there.  I passed it just last weekend when driving home from Baltimore.  But I forget how far before the I-68 interchange it's located.

[briantroutman]

Thanks for posting all of those great meet photos, Len! I don't think I took photos of anything that you didn't, so you basically saved me the effort of posting mine.

Regarding the women in the photos (depending on which photo)... In the group photo, that's Sonia Hooper, the wife of Jimmy Hooper (standing to her right in the orange vest)–they came down from Connecticut for the meet. I hadn't met them before, but they both seemed like very affable people.

In the meeting room photo: I don't recall their names, but the woman on the left (with the light brown hair and yellow vest) is an engineer for Jacobs Engineering Group, the lead contractor on the project. The woman on the right (with the dark hair) is an engineer for the PTC. The man at the head of the table (with the beard and glasses on his head) is Mike Phillips, the PTC's lead engineer on the project, and the guy to his right is Pat Kelly, Jacobs' lead engineer for the project.

And just to expand upon some comments made earlier regarding mileposts, exit numbers, and the ownership of the roadway: The PTC is constructing the new flyovers from the Delaware Expressway to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the flyovers will be transferred to PennDOT upon completion. The mainline of the Turnpike from the flyovers eastward to the NJ line will remain PTC property (and will technically still be a part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System), but signage both on the mainline and on intersecting roads will carry only I-95 shields–no "Penna Turnpike"  keystones. So unlike I-70 and I-76, a motorist driving through on I-95 may be completely unaware that he or she has ever been on the Pennsylvania Turnpike for part of the journey. And Mike Phillips emphasized that the westbound-only toll at the Delaware River Bridge was a "bridge toll" , not a road toll. So in a manner of speaking, I-95 in Pennsylvania remains toll-free.

I was the one that provided the shields.

And I want to point out that not only did Al provide the shields, he had the idea to use them. Thanks again for thinking of it, Al! (And for suggesting Golden Dawn–lunch was great.)

[MantyMadTown]

I threw this together to count down to the opening: http://isi95completeyet.tk/

Only a week now? Alright!

Nice photos, qguy!