I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[AMLNet49]

I've always heard that US 130/NJ 49 are Exit 1 (I-295, as signed), US 40 is "Route 40".

I'd say that the US 40 exit from the northbound Turnpike, and the NJ 140/CR540 exit from the southbound Turnpike, in deference to their positions on US 40, should be numbered 1D.

I'll get my coat.

It should be Exit 1C, but I know where you are coming from as Hook Road has 1C on 295 so even though two different roads you bring into the fact that two exits with the same exact number nearby can cause confusion.

If anything the turnpike itself should be Exit 1C off 295.

[Roadsguy]

Really DE I-295, the bridge, and the NJTP south of Exit 6 should all be I-895, but that's probably getting too far into fictional territory...

[jeffandnicole]

I've always heard that US 130/NJ 49 are Exit 1 (I-295, as signed), US 40 is "Route 40".

I'd say that the US 40 exit from the northbound Turnpike, and the NJ 140/CR540 exit from the southbound Turnpike, in deference to their positions on US 40, should be numbered 1D.

I'll get my coat.

It should be Exit 1C, but I know where you are coming from as Hook Road has 1C on 295 so even though two different roads you bring into the fact that two exits with the same exact number nearby can cause confusion.

If anything the turnpike itself should be Exit 1C off 295.

Bingo.

Really DE I-295, the bridge, and the NJTP south of Exit 6 should all be I-895, but that's probably getting too far into fictional territory...

What's the point of changing 295 to 895 on the bridge and In Delaware?

[02 Park Ave]

Will the southbound Turnpike itself become Exit 6 off of I-95 when the Interchange is opened over in PA?

[jwolfer]

I've always heard that US 130/NJ 49 are Exit 1 (I-295, as signed), US 40 is "Route 40".

I'd say that the US 40 exit from the northbound Turnpike, and the NJ 140/CR540 exit from the southbound Turnpike, in deference to their positions on US 40, should be numbered 1D.

I'll get my coat.

It should be Exit 1C, but I know where you are coming from as Hook Road has 1C on 295 so even though two different roads you bring into the fact that two exits with the same exact number nearby can cause confusion.

If anything the turnpike itself should be Exit 1C off 295.

Bingo.

Really DE I-295, the bridge, and the NJTP south of Exit 6 should all be I-895, but that's probably getting too far into fictional territory...

What's the point of changing 295 to 895 on the bridge and In Delaware?

I agree... 895 would work on turnpike.. there could be a multiplex of 895 and 295 if you really wanted 895 to touch 95.. I say keep 295 as is

Another option that NJ and DE could do without asking permission is commission  state route 95E... It would get the point that it's an alternative to i95.  Most regular people only consider the number.. NJ it's all "Route XX" anyway

Z981

[jeffandnicole]

Will the southbound Turnpike itself become Exit 6 off of I-95 when the Interchange is opened over in PA?

In theory it could. But...the Turnpike goes out of its way to make sure all exits are on the right, which this would then violate.

[Alps]

Will the southbound Turnpike itself become Exit 6 off of I-95 when the Interchange is opened over in PA?

No. Nothing is changing until everything changes. (I.e., until they're forced to go to mile-based numbers, in which case yes I-95 would be the mainline.)

[roadman65]

Will the southbound Turnpike itself become Exit 6 off of I-95 when the Interchange is opened over in PA?

NJTA considers the whole Turnpike to be liked one completed numbered route.  Even Kansas did the same where I-35 exits the Kansas Turnpike where they could use the changeover to I-335 as Exit 127, but they opted to let I-35 exit itself.

Plus the ticket system is another reason for both roadways.

[SignBridge]

Roadsguy, why do you insist that the south end of the NJT necessarily needs to have an Interstate number? Why not just leave it as the NJT with signs showing the well-known green Turnpike logo? Introducing yet another 3-digit Interstate route number to this area may cause more confusion to drivers than just leaving it posted as the NJT.

[roadman65]

 I think he is used to NCDOT turning every known freeway of theirs into one, so why not NJ also.

[Roadsguy]

I'm not even from NC, I'm from Philly and currently live in Lebanon County.

In retrospect, though, DelDOT signs the NJTP well enough that it really does function as a single route already, even if nothing on the DE side of the bridge is actually the Turnpike. The only real reason they'd want to make an I-895 here is for similarity to how the easternmost section of the PA Turnpike is I-276. If anything, that's what I'm used to, not NC's Interstate overload (even though the only things of theirs I don't like are I-87's and I-74's numbers, and the latter's eastern end. I'd even replace I-74 with even more Interstates!).

[jeffandnicole]

I'm not even from NC, I'm from Philly and currently live in Lebanon County.

In retrospect, though, DelDOT signs the NJTP well enough that it really does function as a single route already, even if nothing on the DE side of the bridge is actually the Turnpike. The only real reason they'd want to make an I-895 here is for similarity to how the easternmost section of the PA Turnpike is I-276. If anything, that's what I'm used to, not NC's Interstate overload (even though the only things of theirs I don't like are I-87's and I-74's numbers, and the latter's eastern end. I'd even replace I-74 with even more Interstates!).

They'll want to, or you'll want to? They've had 50 years to do it if they wanted.

[Roadsguy]

I'm not even from NC, I'm from Philly and currently live in Lebanon County.

In retrospect, though, DelDOT signs the NJTP well enough that it really does function as a single route already, even if nothing on the DE side of the bridge is actually the Turnpike. The only real reason they'd want to make an I-895 here is for similarity to how the easternmost section of the PA Turnpike is I-276. If anything, that's what I'm used to, not NC's Interstate overload (even though the only things of theirs I don't like are I-87's and I-74's numbers, and the latter's eastern end. I'd even replace I-74 with even more Interstates!).

They'll want to, or you'll want to? They've had 50 years to do it if they wanted.

They would, not will or do. They clearly don't, or else it would have been done by now (or at least soon to be done when all the renumbering related to the interchange is done).

[cpzilliacus]

Will the southbound Turnpike itself become Exit 6 off of I-95 when the Interchange is opened over in PA?

NJTA considers the whole Turnpike to be liked one completed numbered route.  Even Kansas did the same where I-35 exits the Kansas Turnpike where they could use the changeover to I-335 as Exit 127, but they opted to let I-35 exit itself.

And the toll roads in Ohio (I-80/I-90, I-80, and I-76) and New York State (I-90, I-87 and part of I-287).

[AMLNet49]

Will the southbound Turnpike itself become Exit 6 off of I-95 when the Interchange is opened over in PA?

NJTA considers the whole Turnpike to be liked one completed numbered route.  Even Kansas did the same where I-35 exits the Kansas Turnpike where they could use the changeover to I-335 as Exit 127, but they opted to let I-35 exit itself.

And the toll roads in Ohio (I-80/I-90, I-80, and I-76) and New York State (I-90, I-87 and part of I-287).

Not a fan of TOTSOs like that I wish they were either labeled as equals or in some cases (not the turnpike examples) with the mainline labeled as an exit. I think about US 6 West at 3 North just off Cape Cod in Mass as a great example of the mainline being signed as an exit at a TOTSO

But in the NJTP example, IMHO mainline should probably be NJTP south to I-295 South, the exit shouldn’t be labeled as an exit, it should just be I-95 south to I-276 West. Label the US 130 Exit as Exit 6 or 6A, tell everyone that the turnpike now splits and Exit 6/6A is on the 95 spur, which most probly don’t know about right now, and you have a configuration that makes sense in a future context, not just based on what’s already there.

[Compulov]

I'm actually surprised they didn't try and do this in a shorter time span... I realize it's a *lot* of signs, but they've got some massively inconsistent signing going on right now... The last few days I've seen mile markers for 295 and mile markers for 95 on the same stretch of highway... plus they still have trailblazers up for 95 along most of the stretch (but not all of it). I wonder how PennDOT is going to handle their side... as it is the exits have "Old Exit" markers on them from when they moved from sequential numbering to mileage based numbering (I think).

[akotchi]

I'm actually surprised they didn't try and do this in a shorter time span... I realize it's a *lot* of signs, but they've got some massively inconsistent signing going on right now... The last few days I've seen mile markers for 295 and mile markers for 95 on the same stretch of highway... plus they still have trailblazers up for 95 along most of the stretch (but not all of it). I wonder how PennDOT is going to handle their side... as it is the exits have "Old Exit" markers on them from when they moved from sequential numbering to mileage based numbering (I think).

I agree . . . From what I have seen, "I-295 north" is posted on all the overhead pull-throughs, though "I-95 north" is still posted on the pull-throughs in the opposite direction (at least as of Friday . . . ).  There are no other confirmation assemblies for I-295 yet (either direction) aside from the one just west of U.S. 1.  There are, however, many empty post installations behind existing small ground-mounted signs, which suggests that quite a few of those replacements are coming soon.

Signs were changed on U.S. 206 when I ran through there on Friday, too, but nothing below says I-295 yet.

I have noticed that for the interchange cross-streets that have been done, a few of the destination signs have been removed, not to be replaced (according to the plans).  I understand why they have to come down -- New York is posted on many of them, which was an old I-95 destination -- but put the other destinations back.  This won't help during the transition either . . .

The milemarker matter is bizarre, and I also think they are a little off.  I did catch a couple of shots last week of 295 and 95 signs (milemarkers or confirmations) in the same view . . .

The whole thing is pretty adventurous so far.  Good thing I take U.S. 1 home . . .

[Alps]

I'm actually surprised they didn't try and do this in a shorter time span... I realize it's a *lot* of signs, but they've got some massively inconsistent signing going on right now... The last few days I've seen mile markers for 295 and mile markers for 95 on the same stretch of highway... plus they still have trailblazers up for 95 along most of the stretch (but not all of it). I wonder how PennDOT is going to handle their side... as it is the exits have "Old Exit" markers on them from when they moved from sequential numbering to mileage based numbering (I think).

I agree . . . From what I have seen, "I-295 north" is posted on all the overhead pull-throughs, though "I-95 north" is still posted on the pull-throughs in the opposite direction (at least as of Friday . . . ).  There are no other confirmation assemblies for I-295 yet (either direction) aside from the one just west of U.S. 1.  There are, however, many empty post installations behind existing small ground-mounted signs, which suggests that quite a few of those replacements are coming soon.

Signs were changed on U.S. 206 when I ran through there on Friday, too, but nothing below says I-295 yet.

I have noticed that for the interchange cross-streets that have been done, a few of the destination signs have been removed, not to be replaced (according to the plans).  I understand why they have to come down -- New York is posted on many of them, which was an old I-95 destination -- but put the other destinations back.  This won't help during the transition either . . .

The milemarker matter is bizarre, and I also think they are a little off.  I did catch a couple of shots last week of 295 and 95 signs (milemarkers or confirmations) in the same view . . .

The whole thing is pretty adventurous so far.  Good thing I take U.S. 1 home . . .

So we've found the only highway where you can go the same direction in opposite directions for miles!

[Beltway]

Not a fan of TOTSOs like that I wish they were either labeled as equals or in some cases (not the turnpike examples) with the mainline labeled as an exit. I think about US 6 West at 3 North just off Cape Cod in Mass as a great example of the mainline being signed as an exit at a TOTSO

Turn Off To Stay On that same numbered route

I had not heard of that, I just looked it up.

[SignBridge]

NJT Exit-6 southbound will be an awkward signing situation. I would tend to agree that it might create less confusion just not to use exit numbers at all in this situation to keep the routes equal. But I'm guessing the MUTCD probably doesn't allow that.

[Alps]

NJT Exit-6 southbound will be an awkward signing situation. I would tend to agree that it might create less confusion just not to use exit numbers at all in this situation to keep the routes equal. But I'm guessing the MUTCD probably doesn't allow that.

No one's really going to be looking at the exit tab, but as far as the Turnpike is concerned Exit 6 will always be Exit 6.

[jp the roadgeek]

NJT Exit-6 southbound will be an awkward signing situation. I would tend to agree that it might create less confusion just not to use exit numbers at all in this situation to keep the routes equal. But I'm guessing the MUTCD probably doesn't allow that.

No one's really going to be looking at the exit tab, but as far as the Turnpike is concerned Exit 6 will always be Exit 6.

It's sort of the same situation as when I-90 exits the Berkshire Spur at Exit B1.  Despite the ramp being part of mainline I-90, the exit is still numbered westbound.  The only saving grace here is that both the NJTP and NY Thruway use sequential numbers, and that Exit 6 is at I-95 MP 6.  If you really want to get anal southbound, either remove the exit designation southbound only, or create an I-95/I-93 junction situation and give the number to the mainline as a left exit from I-95.  It's fine as is northbound.  Same with B1; give the westbound left exit designation to continue on the spur and remove the number from the ramp, but leave it as is eastbound.  Bring in mileage based to any or all highways, and the possibilities are endless. 

[jeffandnicole]

NJT Exit-6 southbound will be an awkward signing situation. I would tend to agree that it might create less confusion just not to use exit numbers at all in this situation to keep the routes equal. But I'm guessing the MUTCD probably doesn't allow that.

No one's really going to be looking at the exit tab, but as far as the Turnpike is concerned Exit 6 will always be Exit 6.

It's sort of the same situation as when I-90 exits the Berkshire Spur at Exit B1.  Despite the ramp being part of mainline I-90, the exit is still numbered westbound.  The only saving grace here is that both the NJTP and NY Thruway use sequential numbers, and that Exit 6 is at I-95 MP 6.  If you really want to get anal southbound, either remove the exit designation southbound only, or create an I-95/I-93 junction situation and give the number to the mainline as a left exit from I-95.  It's fine as is northbound.  Same with B1; give the westbound left exit designation to continue on the spur and remove the number from the ramp, but leave it as is eastbound.  Bring in mileage based to any or all highways, and the possibilities are endless. 

As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.

The I-95 designation isn't an afterthought - the dual-dual design to Interchange 6 was done with it completely in mind and in conjunction with the PA Turnpike's interchange with 95.  They could've easily designed the interchange so that 95 was the thru route, not the exit.  They clearly have decided that I-95 will exit the Turnpike; not the Turnpike exiting 95.

[Beltway]

As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.

Left hand exits and entrances are an obsolete and substandard design.
.....

4.4 Are all the exits and entrances on the right side of the freeway mainline?

It is highly preferable to use right-hand entrance and exit ramps in the design of new interchanges. Entrance and exit ramps on the left-side of the freeway are contrary to driver expectation and studies indicate that crashes may be reduced as much as 25-70 percent with the use of right-off, right-on ramps as compared to left hand ramps. Traffic speeds are typically faster in the left-most lanes of the freeway, and therefore speed differentials between entering and exiting traffic and through traffic is usually greater with left-hand ramps.

If possible, existing left hand entrance/exit ramps should be replaced with right hand ramps when reconstructing an interchange. If this is impracticable because of unacceptable economic, environmental or social impacts then such reasons should be well documented and justified. Such justification should include a crash data analysis showing that the existing left hand ramp is not a substantial safety hazard.

If it is not feasible to eliminate left-side ramps, consider the following mitigation measures:
- Extend auxiliary lanes in advance of exits and beyond entrances to reduce the speed differential conflicts
- Provide full decision sight distance in advance of a left-side exit
- Providing supplemental advance signing for left-side exit ramps
- Provide ramp geometry near the point of physical merge or diverge that accommodates a high design speed (provide at least 75 percent of mainline design speed)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/modiv/programs/intersta/idp.cfm

[AMLNet49]

As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.

Left hand exits and entrances are an obsolete and substandard design.
.....

4.4 Are all the exits and entrances on the right side of the freeway mainline?

It is highly preferable to use right-hand entrance and exit ramps in the design of new interchanges. Entrance and exit ramps on the left-side of the freeway are contrary to driver expectation and studies indicate that crashes may be reduced as much as 25-70 percent with the use of right-off, right-on ramps as compared to left hand ramps. Traffic speeds are typically faster in the left-most lanes of the freeway, and therefore speed differentials between entering and exiting traffic and through traffic is usually greater with left-hand ramps.

If possible, existing left hand entrance/exit ramps should be replaced with right hand ramps when reconstructing an interchange. If this is impracticable because of unacceptable economic, environmental or social impacts then such reasons should be well documented and justified. Such justification should include a crash data analysis showing that the existing left hand ramp is not a substantial safety hazard.

If it is not feasible to eliminate left-side ramps, consider the following mitigation measures:
- Extend auxiliary lanes in advance of exits and beyond entrances to reduce the speed differential conflicts
- Provide full decision sight distance in advance of a left-side exit
- Providing supplemental advance signing for left-side exit ramps
- Provide ramp geometry near the point of physical merge or diverge that accommodates a high design speed (provide at least 75 percent of mainline design speed)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/modiv/programs/intersta/idp.cfm

This really has nothing to do with the discussion though because they were never going to change the configuration to make 95 the mainline. The discussion is about whether to put the exit tab on the mainline or on 95. I have to assume even if the mainline was signed as an exit (which won't happen) it would just be a pull thru with an exit tab while 95 would probably be signed like an exit but with no tab