I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[bzakharin]

When I worked the NJ Turnpike from 2001 - 2004 collecting tolls, I would have people show me MapQuest printouts that detailed driving directions showing me how they got on the Turnpike behind a service plaza and that's how they didn't get a toll ticket.

I didn't realize you could do that. It does look like there are "employees only" entrances, but I can't tell from GSV whether there is access from an employee parking lot onto the service area proper.

Nearly every printout detailed them to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridge into Delaware, then to take Exit 5 onto I-95 South.  As you may know, Exit 5 is for Rt. 141, not I-95 South.  And driving, I would see people quite often pull to the left, then back out onto the real lanes for I-95 South.  The technology honestly sucked at that time compared to what can be done today.  Sure, it was much, much better than looking at a paper map...except when it took you the wrong way. 

Why is exit 5 even signed there? You're not on I-95 yet and I-295 has no exit numbers. The only other place I can think of that used to have this is the new Atlantic City Expressway exit ramp to the Garden State Parkway. When that was under construction, the construction signage showed the Pleasantville exit off the ramp as Exit 37, because before construction you would enter the Parkway and take Exit 37 for this movement. Once the construction was over, they removed the exit tab from that ramp split, though.

[jeffandnicole]

When I worked the NJ Turnpike from 2001 - 2004 collecting tolls, I would have people show me MapQuest printouts that detailed driving directions showing me how they got on the Turnpike behind a service plaza and that's how they didn't get a toll ticket.

I didn't realize you could do that. It does look like there are "employees only" entrances, but I can't tell from GSV whether there is access from an employee parking lot onto the service area proper.

There's a gate between the employee parking area and the public area of the service area parking lot.  They're rarely shut, which allows people to get on and off without paying.  If a State Trooper is back there though, it's gonna cost someone a lot more than the toll they would've paid!

Nearly every printout detailed them to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridge into Delaware, then to take Exit 5 onto I-95 South.  As you may know, Exit 5 is for Rt. 141, not I-95 South.  And driving, I would see people quite often pull to the left, then back out onto the real lanes for I-95 South.  The technology honestly sucked at that time compared to what can be done today.  Sure, it was much, much better than looking at a paper map...except when it took you the wrong way. 

Why is exit 5 even signed there? You're not on I-95 yet and I-295 has no exit numbers. The only other place I can think of that used to have this is the new Atlantic City Expressway exit ramp to the Garden State Parkway. When that was under construction, the construction signage showed the Pleasantville exit off the ramp as Exit 37, because before construction you would enter the Parkway and take Exit 37 for this movement. Once the construction was over, they removed the exit tab from that ramp split, though.
[/quote]

I guess because it's all part of the I-95 interchange, they give it the interchange number found on the rest of the interchange.  If it was I-295's exit number, it would be Exit 1 (or 0, if they used it).

[ipeters61]

I guess because it's all part of the I-95 interchange, they give it the interchange number found on the rest of the interchange.  If it was I-295's exit number, it would be Exit 1 (or 0, if they used it).

DelDOT has recently embraced the idea of Exit 0.  The exit for I-295 North from I-495 South was recently signed as Exit 0, at least at the 2 mile advance (not sure why not beyond that). https://goo.gl/maps/qvbj2m6JV142

Also, interestingly, on I-495 South, I-95 Exit 5 is signed as "To Exit 5" but that could be because it leads you to the lanes on I-95 that face Exit 5/DE-141, not directly to DE-141.

[jeffandnicole]

I guess because it's all part of the I-95 interchange, they give it the interchange number found on the rest of the interchange.  If it was I-295's exit number, it would be Exit 1 (or 0, if they used it).

DelDOT has recently embraced the idea of Exit 0.  The exit for I-295 North from I-495 South was recently signed as Exit 0, at least at the 2 mile advance (not sure why not beyond that). https://goo.gl/maps/qvbj2m6JV142

Since it's within the DRBA's jurisdiction, I guess DelDOT and DRBA would needs to work with each other on that exit number. 

On the NJ side of the bridge, Exit 1A is clearly within DRBA's jurisdiction as well, although NJDOT makes them use the exit number on it.  Could be the case for Rt. 141 as well.  That just leaves the DE 9 and US 13/40 interchanges numberless.

[bluecountry]

Got a few points:

1) Why isn't Philadelphia used as a control city for the NJTP southbound from the GWB?
In fact, even on the GWB in NY, they sign 'Trenton' or 'NJ' going south on I-95, YET if you go on I-95 north they use 'New Haven' as a control city.
I'm not a Philly fan, but I don't get why Philly is so snubbed, it's the 5th or so largest US metro area.
If you are going to sign 'New Haven' which is 130,000 people 70 miles away, why not sign 'Philadelphia' which is 1 million people and 90 miles away?

2) In regards to the I-95/PATP interchange:
-Isn't I-95 from the NJTP to the PATP/I-295 junction in PA supposed to be widened (including the bridge)?

3) Why is it that I-95 in NJ from the NJTP to the PA border DOES NOT intersect with I-295 in NJ?
-Very weird that an interstates spur route would not connect.
-It would make sense for it to connect, this way motorists exiting the NJTP at 6 could use I-295 to head to Camden/NJ suburbs of Philly or go into PA to get to Philly.

[bluecountry]

Can anyone really justify not using Philly as the main I-95 control city between Baltimore and NYC? The whole section from Baltimore to NYC needs an overhaul in control city signage, IMHO.

Philadelphia is inconsequential.

Give it some more time.  They were bypassed by a superhighway in Delaware and New Jersey back in 1951.  It is only in 2018 that a continuous I-95 route now exists.

I keep in mind how many of us take for granted just the brilliance of the NJTP in South Jersey.
It should have been a model for ALL major cities, especially DC, on how to properly divide and move local/long distance traffic.
I love it.

-The NJTP from the DE Bridge north is for New York/Northeast long distance traffic.
-I-295 in NJ is for local Philly suburb traffic
-I-95 from DE north is for Philly/PA suburb traffic

Brilliant, and so easy to take for granted.

Then you have DC, where there is just ONE road (I-95) which doesn't even bisect the central core and has both direct DC traffic, local DC suburb traffic, AND long distance Northeast to FL traffic.  Just terrible.

It is amazing how they did it so right with the Philly model.
I have thought, if the NJTP/I-95 was conceived 20 years later or nowadays, would we have gotten three parallel northbound interstates in the Philly area or would we have all been stuck on either I-95 going through Philly or I-295 would have been shared like I-495 in MD/VA is between local and long distance traffic?
It would have made the trip from NY south so much worse.
Anybody else ever think that?

[Beltway]

Until a few weeks ago I-95 was not complete between Philadelphia/SE PA and the GW Bridge (or to the north).  Not appropriate for control city signing until that was completed.  I-95 passes thru New Haven and is completed between the GW Bridge and Canada, and has been since the 1970s.  Make sense to use New Haven as a control city.

The "Philly model" with respect to the NJ Turnpike and I-295, one a bypass for thru traffic and the other a local freeway -- keep in mind that this was the work of New Jersey and Delaware, Pennsylvania had nothing to do with it.

Th D.C. area -- three freeway routes possible for I-95 thru traffic, the eastern half of the Beltway, the western half of the Beltway, and the route thru the city (I-395, I-695, Kenilworth, BW Parkway).  Not that the area doesn't need an outer bypass!!!

[jeffandnicole]

The "Philly model" with respect to the NJ Turnpike and I-295, one a bypass for thru traffic and the other a local freeway -- keep in mind that this was the work of New Jersey and Delaware, Pennsylvania had nothing to do with it.

Technically, 295 was a byproduct of the feds designing the interstate system, and Delaware definitely had something to do with it as it branches off from 95 there.

And based on the plans at the time, it's how PennDOT designed their portion of 95. 

[SignBridge]

I believe I-95 was originally supposed to go straight through Washington DC, but it was never built. So the east half of the Beltway became I-95 instead. Same is true in Boston I believe. There SR 128 became I-95 in a similar re-routing. Apologies for being off-topic.

[jon daly]

^ Yes, the Southeast Expressway was supposed to carry I-95 into Boston.

[Beltway]

I-395 in Virginia and D.C. formerly was I-95, and unbuilt I-95 would have been the North Central Freeway and Northeast Freeway in D.C. and Maryland, connecting into I-95 at I-495.

[NJRoadfan]

Until a few weeks ago I-95 was not complete between Philadelphia/SE PA and the GW Bridge (or to the north).  Not appropriate for control city signing until that was completed.  I-95 passes thru New Haven and is completed between the GW Bridge and Canada, and has been since the 1970s.  Make sense to use New Haven as a control city.

Its doubtful the NJ Turnpike Authority is going to change the southbound control cites on all their signs from Trenton/Camden to Philadelphia. They were all recently replaced and no provision was made to change the control city after the interchange opened.

[Roadwarriors79]

Until a few weeks ago I-95 was not complete between Philadelphia/SE PA and the GW Bridge (or to the north).  Not appropriate for control city signing until that was completed.  I-95 passes thru New Haven and is completed between the GW Bridge and Canada, and has been since the 1970s.  Make sense to use New Haven as a control city.

Its doubtful the NJ Turnpike Authority is going to change the southbound control cites on all their signs from Trenton/Camden to Philadelphia. They were all recently replaced and no provision was made to change the control city after the interchange opened.

Based on the NJTA sign plans, the only control cities used on the SB Turnpike are Newark, Trenton, Camden, and Wilmington. Once you're at exit 6, I-95 SB is signed "Penn Turnpike - Philadelphia" on the Pearl Harbor Extension.

I don't see much signage changing within New York City either. Most of the signage refers to "Newark NJ". Older signs use "Trenton", and one or two say "New Jersey".

[Alps]

Until a few weeks ago I-95 was not complete between Philadelphia/SE PA and the GW Bridge (or to the north).  Not appropriate for control city signing until that was completed.  I-95 passes thru New Haven and is completed between the GW Bridge and Canada, and has been since the 1970s.  Make sense to use New Haven as a control city.

Its doubtful the NJ Turnpike Authority is going to change the southbound control cites on all their signs from Trenton/Camden to Philadelphia. They were all recently replaced and no provision was made to change the control city after the interchange opened.

They certainly could, but they'll discuss internally, announce a decision through plan revisions (all acceptable control cities are listed on their Standard Drawings), and then cycle it in through sign replacements.
As for bluecountry's Question #2, I think both PA and NJ want to sit back and take stock of what is happening with traffic before making any decisions on widening. It's been known since the great bridge closure a year or two ago that the Delaware River Bridge needs to be replaced in the relatively short term, and the idea is probably going to be to pull an Egg Harbor - the new bridge would be wide enough for both directions of traffic, and then they can either reconstruct the existing bridge or construct a completely new one in its place. If traffic volumes warrant, both bridges will carry 3 lanes and enough widening will be done to connect them to existing 3-lane freeway. If traffic volumes don't warrant and don't appear to be growing that way, you may see the new bridge in one direction at 2 lanes and the other at 3. No final decision has been made about any of this to my knowledge.

[NJRoadfan]

They've already deviated from the published control cities twice, so who knows. Maybe they'll surprise us. I'd love to see New York City and Philadelphia share a sign at Exit 129 of the GSP.

[Beltway]

It's been known since the great bridge closure a year or two ago that the Delaware River Bridge needs to be replaced in the relatively short term,

Has there been a final determination made as to whether it can be rehabbed into being able to handle 3 lanes well into the future after a parallel bridge is built?

[Roadsguy]

The original plan was to just build a parallel three-lane span and reconstruct the current bridge to carry three lanes in the other direction. I believe they settled on the new bridge to the south at one point. However, from speaking with the engineers at Brian Troutman's Golden Spike meet back in September, they're unsure of what they will do. A total replacement with a six-lane bridge is one possibility that they mentioned.

I think if they do twin it, the new bridge should be wide enough for four lanes plus a left and right shoulder. The old bridge certainly would be unless they drastically reduce the deck width for no reason. It would be a while before an eight-lane widening is warranted, though.

[Alps]

It's been known since the great bridge closure a year or two ago that the Delaware River Bridge needs to be replaced in the relatively short term,

Has there been a final determination made as to whether it can be rehabbed into being able to handle 3 lanes well into the future after a parallel bridge is built?

Nope. I spoke too broadly. That is definitely one of the items under consideration that will be costed out.

[jeffandnicole]

The original plan was to just build a parallel three-lane span and reconstruct the current bridge to carry three lanes in the other direction. I believe they settled on the new bridge to the south at one point. However, from speaking with the engineers at Brian Troutman's Golden Spike meet back in September, they're unsure of what they will do. A total replacement with a six-lane bridge is one possibility that they mentioned.

I think if they do twin it, the new bridge should be wide enough for four lanes plus a left and right shoulder. The old bridge certainly would be unless they drastically reduce the deck width for no reason. It would be a while before an eight-lane widening is warranted, though.

Don't forget the bike and pedestrian lane, because the regional bicycle coalition will remind everyone that many of their members want to bike between Bristol PA and Florence NJ, and they'll have 218 people send identical form letters with vague names and addresses to the Turnpikes reminding them of its importance to the region's economy and employment potential.

[Beltway]

The existing bridge originally had 6 lanes and a painted lines divider and no shoulders.  IOW at least 72 feet wide (6 lanes at 12 feet wide each).

So it is wide enough for a directional roadway with four 12-foot lanes and two 12-foot shoulders.

[Roadsguy]

The existing bridge originally had 6 lanes and a painted lines divider and no shoulders.  IOW at least 72 feet wide (6 lanes at 12 feet wide each).

So it is wide enough for a directional roadway with four 12-foot lanes and two 12-foot shoulders.

Did it really have only a painted center line right up to the time they reduced it to four lanes?

[J N Winkler]

Based on the NJTA sign plans, the only control cities used on the SB Turnpike are Newark, Trenton, Camden, and Wilmington. Once you're at exit 6, I-95 SB is signed "Penn Turnpike - Philadelphia" on the Pearl Harbor Extension.

Where are you finding these sign plans?

[Beltway]

The existing bridge originally had 6 lanes and a painted lines divider and no shoulders.  IOW at least 72 feet wide (6 lanes at 12 feet wide each).
So it is wide enough for a directional roadway with four 12-foot lanes and two 12-foot shoulders.

Did it really have only a painted center line right up to the time they reduced it to four lanes?

That I am not sure about.  Just that the above was what I saw when I lived in the area in the 1970s.

This postcard shows the bridge without a median barrier, and with lane-control light gantries --
https://www.hippostcard.com/listing/postcard-pennsylvania-delaware-river-bridge-turnpike-nj-free-shipping-2656a/16162492

[Alps]

The existing bridge originally had 6 lanes and a painted lines divider and no shoulders.  IOW at least 72 feet wide (6 lanes at 12 feet wide each).
So it is wide enough for a directional roadway with four 12-foot lanes and two 12-foot shoulders.

Did it really have only a painted center line right up to the time they reduced it to four lanes?

That I am not sure about.  Just that the above was what I saw when I lived in the area in the 1970s.

This postcard shows the bridge without a median barrier, and with lane-control light gantries --
https://www.hippostcard.com/listing/postcard-pennsylvania-delaware-river-bridge-turnpike-nj-free-shipping-2656a/16162492

1971 Historic Aerials show what appears to be 6 striped lanes, 3 each way with a solid or double-solid centerline, still with lane use gantries. At that resolution I can't confirm whether it's a centerline or a barrier, but it suggests the closure of the right lane was very close in time, if not contemporaneous, with barrier installation.

[PHLBOS]

Got a few points:

1) Why isn't Philadelphia used as a control city for the NJTP southbound from the GWB?

Because the highway itself doesn't enter into PA let alone Philadelphia.  Keep in mind that the NJTP's existence predates that of I-95.  And when I-95 came to be; the original plan was to have it leave the NJTP at Exit 10 (I-287/NJ 440) and follow what is now I-287 to a point where the northern end of the cancelled Somerset Freeway portion of I-95 would've been built.  Had such (the Somerset Freeway) been built as planned; Philadelphia would've been likely displayed on either the primary signs for Exit 10 or via supplemental signage.

Heck, had NJ 90 been built further east to I-295 & NJTP (near/at Exit 4); such would've served as a direct link between those two parallel highways and Northeast Philadelphia. 

2) In regards to the I-95/PATP interchange:
-Isn't I-95 from the NJTP to the PATP/I-295 junction in PA supposed to be widened (including the bridge)?

When I first checked out the area following the interchange's opening; I did notice a widened but unused deck along the northern stretch of the westbound Turnpike (I-95 southbound).  So it would seem that a future widening of that stretch is the ultimate plan.

3) Why is it that I-95 in NJ from the NJTP to the PA border DOES NOT intersect with I-295 in NJ?
-Very weird that an interstates spur route would not connect.
-It would make sense for it to connect, this way motorists exiting the NJTP at 6 could use I-295 to head to Camden/NJ suburbs of Philly or go into PA to get to Philly.

I-295 in that area was built during the early 1970s(?) back when the fore-mentioned-plan for I-95 was to have it leave the NJTP at Exit 10.  The reasoning for not building an interchange between I-295 & the Connector when the latter was built is not completely known other than either the conditions, at the time, didn't warrant it or the money to acquire the real-estate to build the interchange ramps plus the required-toll plaza wasn't availble.  Again it was likely assumed that I-95 in its original form along with the completion of I-195 to the west would've handled I-295 traffic coming from the north.

^ Yes, the Southeast Expressway was supposed to carry I-95 into Boston.

Since this comment is OT; I'll insert my reply here rather than another post.  The Southeast Expressway was not the original plan for how I-95 would enter/leave Boston to/from the south.  I-95 at the Canton interchange w/then-just MA 128 was to be extended via the Southwest Expressway up to where it would connect with another unbuilt-expressway known as the Inner-Belt (I-695).  From there, I-95 would've linked with the Fitzgerald Expressway system at the Mass Ave. interchange (its original configuration was a 3-way highway interchange).  From there, it would have ran along the existing elevated Pulaski Skyway to the South Station Tunnel to the Central Artery to the Northeast Expressway/Tobin Bridge.

When plans to build both the Inner Belt & Southwest Expressway were killed off in 1970; there was a plan to designate the Southeast Expressway and the Braintree-to-Canton stretch of MA 128 as a de-facto routing for I-95 south of Boston that lingered for about two years until the plan to extend the Northeast Expressway (then-I-95) north of MA 60 in Revere to where I-95 was being built in Peabody/Danvers (north of 128) was ultimately killed off.  The result of the cancellation for that project lead to the current routing of I-95 as well as the extension of I-93 to Canton.