I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[ekt8750]

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

Someone should have told PennDOT that before they rebuilt the South St bridge over the Schuylkill.

[jeffandnicole]

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

Someone should have told PennDOT that before they rebuild the South St bridge over the Schuylkill.

I do think options were considered.  But due to the location between the railroad tracks, U of Penn existing infrastructure and the river, they left it alone.  Even if they did try to fix it up, they still have to get traffic thru there during the construction period, which can be another limitation on reconstruction. I think they could've done a little bit to extend the acceleration lane.

At least they fixed up the ramp where it intersects at South Street to assist up there a little though.

I don't mind getting off the highway at South Street, but I really hate trying to get on the highway there. 

[SignBridge]

JP the roadgeek, ironic that you should mention the I-95/I-93 situation near Boston, which is a lot like NJT Exit 6 southbound. That similarity had occurred to me also. As I said earlier these are very awkward situations to sign properly. And they usually are the result of Interstates eventually taking a different routing than was originally planned. That was the case in Mass. with I-95/Ma.128. The I-95/93 re-signing while technically correct does look absolutely bizarre and is probably confusing to a lot of drivers who don't understand the logic of it the way us roadgeeks do. That's why I suggested in an earlier post that maybe exit numbers shouldn't be used at these locations.

And J&N, I do commend the NJTA for their very smart engineering and concern with safety as regards left hand exits/entrances at both interchanges and service-areas. Far smarter and safer than Delaware and Maryland where you exit and enter at high-speed from their service areas on I-95.

[02 Park Ave]

Rather than thinking of "Exit 6" as a left hand exit off of I-95, perhaps it should be considered a "split" along the lines of the "mixing bowls".

[Alps]

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.

Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.

One or two fewer bridges actually.

The inner roadway couldve have a standard right lane exit, with the outer roadway having a left lane exit.  They combine on one bridge over the roadways.  Same with entering the highway - one bridge will enter the roadway, splitting to a right lane entrance for the inner roadway; left entrance for the outer roadway.  This especially saves some bridge distance for the roadway furthest away from the toll plaza.

Or, the two opposing inner roadways share a bridge, with left handed exits/entry for both. 

[Alps]

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.

Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.

One or two fewer bridges actually.

The inner roadway couldve have a standard right lane exit, with the outer roadway having a left lane exit.  They combine on one bridge over the roadways.  Same with entering the highway - one bridge will enter the roadway, splitting to a right lane entrance for the inner roadway; left entrance for the outer roadway.  This especially saves some bridge distance for the roadway furthest away from the toll plaza.

Or, the two opposing inner roadways share a bridge, with left handed exits/entry for both. 

Please point me to an existing interchange that could be improved in this manner. I don't think you're seeing that you're adding to bridges. The outer roadway currently does not need a bridge. Trumpets require a full crossing no matter what you do.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.

One or two fewer bridges actually.

The inner roadway couldve have a standard right lane exit, with the outer roadway having a left lane exit.  They combine on one bridge over the roadways.  Same with entering the highway - one bridge will enter the roadway, splitting to a right lane entrance for the inner roadway; left entrance for the outer roadway.  This especially saves some bridge distance for the roadway furthest away from the toll plaza.

Or, the two opposing inner roadways share a bridge, with left handed exits/entry for both. 

Please point me to an existing interchange that could be improved in this manner. I don't think you're seeing that you're adding to bridges. The outer roadway currently does not need a bridge. Trumpets require a full crossing no matter what you do.

Use Interchange 8 for example.  The Southbound inner roadway needs a bridge to cross the outer roadway.  Then, a bridge across all 4 roadways.  Make the outer roadways a left exit/entrance, combined with the southbound inner roadway right lane exit/entrances, and the single bridge only needs to cross 3 roadways. 

Of course, the exit ramps would need to cross over the entrance ramps somehow in such a design.  Would a 3 level bridge be necessary, increasing costs?  But will right of way be needed off to the side of the Turnpike, along with the associated ramp requirements?  Not as much. 

Another option: Allowing switching between roadways (inner to outer or outer to inner), and only need one entrance/exit ramp for each interchange per direction, not two.

Note: I didn't say "improved".  I said to save money.  The current setup with all right lane exits and entrances is optimal.

[Steve D]

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.

Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.

In the non dual-dual sections, they could have put the service areas in the middle, like in Maryland and Delaware, to avoid duplication and save some money.

[PHLBOS]

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.

Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.

In the non dual-dual sections, they could have put the service areas in the middle, like in Maryland and Delaware, to avoid duplication and save some money.

If such was done south of Exit 6, sure; but what if such took place between Exits 8 and 6 years prior to the recent widening?  More money would've been spent to split/relocate those facilities during that widening project.

[jeffandnicole]

Happen to catch a link to this site on the NJ Turnpike website: http://i95link.com/

Mostly talks about the redesignation of I-95 with I-295.  However, one interesting piece of info...when you scroll down, the timeline graphic indicates the opening day of the new 95/PA Turnpike ramps will be in August, 2018!

Also, within this page: http://i95link.com/schedule/ , it makes note that the Pearl Harbor Extension is I-276.

I can't really figure out who owns this page, but it does give a 215 area code phone number in the contacts, so it may be a page created by the PTC or someone associated with them.

[jeffandnicole]

And...in the FAQ section, it addresses why they didn't use another x95 number, such as an odd number.  It doesn't address however using a different even number (ie: 695):

2. Why is I-295 being extended, rather than designating the route as another number (i.e., I-395)?

Representatives from federal, state and regional transportation agencies coordinated with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)'s Special Committee on US Route Numbering.  The Committee felt that an even-numbered designation, indicating a beltway/loop configuration, was more appropriate, as the conversion will connect the expanded I-295 with I-95 in both Wilmington, DE and in Bristol, PA. An odd-numbered designation does not apply here as odd-numbered interstate numbering is reserved for spur routes.

[Beltway]

Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.

One or two fewer bridges actually.
The inner roadway couldve have a standard right lane exit, with the outer roadway having a left lane exit.  They combine on one bridge over the roadways.  Same with entering the highway - one bridge will enter the roadway, splitting to a right lane entrance for the inner roadway; left entrance for the outer roadway.  This especially saves some bridge distance for the roadway furthest away from the toll plaza.
Or, the two opposing inner roadways share a bridge, with left handed exits/entry for both. 

Please point me to an existing interchange that could be improved in this manner. I don't think you're seeing that you're adding to bridges. The outer roadway currently does not need a bridge. Trumpets require a full crossing no matter what you do.

Upon looking at some of these interchanges on Google Maps satellite view --

-- most of these ramps go over the turnpike, but some of them go under.  Likely for topo reasons.

-- looks like if the ramps were consolidated onto one or two bridges, the curve radii would be sharper and low-speed; the as-built separated ramps are on curves that allow for higher speeds (perhaps 35 mph or more).  So it seems that more money was spent to allow higher speed designs, which is a good idea with the higher volume ramps.

[roadman65]

And...in the FAQ section, it addresses why they didn't use another x95 number, such as an odd number.  It doesn't address however using a different even number (ie: 695):

2. Why is I-295 being extended, rather than designating the route as another number (i.e., I-395)?

Representatives from federal, state and regional transportation agencies coordinated with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)’s Special Committee on US Route Numbering.  The Committee felt that an even-numbered designation, indicating a beltway/loop configuration, was more appropriate, as the conversion will connect the expanded I-295 with I-95 in both Wilmington, DE and in Bristol, PA. An odd-numbered designation does not apply here as odd-numbered interstate numbering is reserved for spur routes.

Funny how PennDOT broke that rule with extending I-376 as that now serves as a loop and could be considered a beltway now.

[PHLBOS]

And...in the FAQ section, it addresses why they didn't use another x95 number, such as an odd number.  It doesn't address however using a different even number (ie: 695):

snipped

Because that's the one question that the agency wouldn't be able to answer without realizing that such might've been a more logical solution.

BTW, I just now submitted a comment on that site regarding using I-695 instead.  It's probably too late for any action at this point; but IMHO it was worth submitting.  Note: I posted the snipped quote you posted above and used it as an intro.

Regarding the "Why is I-295 being extended, rather than designating the route as another number (i.e., I-395)?"

Representatives from federal, state and regional transportation agencies coordinated with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)'s Special Committee on US Route Numbering.  The Committee felt that an even-numbered designation, indicating a beltway/loop configuration, was more appropriate, as the conversion will connect the expanded I-295 with I-95 in both Wilmington, DE and in Bristol, PA. An odd-numbered designation does not apply here as odd-numbered interstate numbering is reserved for spur routes.

Solution: why not use I-695 for the new designation?  Both NJ's & PA's original plans for I-695 were cancelled decades ago thereby leaving that number open to be used.   Such is far enough away from both the I-695s in NY & MD to not cause any confusion.

The I-695 designation eliminates the awkward east-west designation in PA on a road that's clearly north/south and allows the NJ stretch from the Scudder Falls Bridge to the US 1 interchange to be more logically signed as an east/west route.

Such would have also eliminated the (unnecessary) need to renumber the mile markers & interchange numbers along the NJ stretch.

While the US 1 interchange would still have 'changing highway numbers' at this interchange; such has existed for at least 25 years.  The only change would be I-95 South would've been redesignated as I-695 West.

Personally, I don't know why the I-695 designation for this soon-to-be-former-stretch of I-95 wasn't even considered nor discussed beforehead.  In my opinion, such would've been a more "path of least resistance" transition.

[SignBridge]

I agree with the numbering solution arrived at by all the participating agencies. Designating I-295 as a kind of beltway is the way to go for the reasons they cited. I think it's generally better to use fewer numbers rather than more. Introducing a 6xx number into the mix would cause more confusion than making I-295 continuous between NJ and Pa.

[Beltway]

Funny how PennDOT broke that rule with extending I-376 as that now serves as a loop and could be considered a beltway now.

I-876 would have been the ideal number, IMHO. 

But using I-376 minimized the Interstate mileage that needed to be renumbered, 8 miles instead of 23 miles if any other number was utilized (479 and 280 were also possibilities), all while utilizing one number for the whole route.

[vdeane]

I agree with the numbering solution arrived at by all the participating agencies. Designating I-295 as a kind of beltway is the way to go for the reasons they cited. I think it's generally better to use fewer numbers rather than more. Introducing a 6xx number into the mix would cause more confusion than making I-295 continuous between NJ and Pa.

I-295 doesn't and won't look anything like a beltway (unless you only consider the part near Trenton).  And it already changes numbers.  You don't think having a very, very clearly north-south road marked east-west is confusing?  It's probably one of the most perfect example of a road with incorrect directions, right on par with I-95 in CT (oddly enough), and unlike I-95, it won't have an excuse.

I'd accept I-295 but with it being signed north-south in PA, east west on former/current I-95, and changing to north-south at US 1.

[SignBridge]

vdeane, ya' beat me to the punch re: I-95/Connecticut Turnpike being an east-west road signed as a north-south Interstate. Not the only place that ever happened either. In Los Angeles you have US-101 running east-west thru the San Fernando Valley but signed as a north-south route.

But back to NJ-PA. While I agree with your point about I-295 running more north-south than east-west in Penna, I think it was decided to sign east-west so it would not be going in the same directions on opposite sides of the Delaware River in two different states. I still believe the way it was decided is the lesser of evils in this case.

[KEVIN_224]

@VDEANE: I-290 in the Worcester, MA region is signed as EAST/WEST, even though it's way more north and south. It changes to I-395 NORTH/SOUTH once it's past I-90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) in Auburn, MA.

[PHLBOS]

@VDEANE: I-290 in the Worcester, MA region is signed as EAST/WEST, even though it's way more north and south. It changes to I-395 NORTH/SOUTH once it's past I-90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) in Auburn, MA.

A few things regarding I-290 in MA:

1.  The overall routing of I-290 from Auburn to Marlborough is still east/west.  Additionally, there were at least two plans to further extend I-290 further east beyond I-495; thereby further cementing that the overall route is clearly east/west.

2.  I-290 was constructed first.  I-395 (originally MA/CT 52) wasn't fully completed until 1977.

Side bar: prior to I-290 being fully completed, a portion of the Worcester section was signed as either MA 122 or 122A (both of which were north/south routes).  70s-vintage ramp and pull-through BGS' featured EAST/WEST 290 notations vertically stacked and placed to the left with a black space to the right.  If one looked at some of those sign boards up close, one could probably see a ghost image of a rectangular MA state route shield with a NORTH/SOUTH ghosting above the shield as well.

One has to wonder had timing and circumstances been different, would the Worcester stretch of I-290 been instead designated as a southern extension of I-190 (a north/south route) if I-190 was built prior to I-290 between I-190 & 495?

[bzakharin]

I agree with the numbering solution arrived at by all the participating agencies. Designating I-295 as a kind of beltway is the way to go for the reasons they cited. I think it's generally better to use fewer numbers rather than more. Introducing a 6xx number into the mix would cause more confusion than making I-295 continuous between NJ and Pa.

I-295 doesn't and won't look anything like a beltway (unless you only consider the part near Trenton).  And it already changes numbers.  You don't think having a very, very clearly north-south road marked east-west is confusing?  It's probably one of the most perfect example of a road with incorrect directions, right on par with I-95 in CT (oddly enough), and unlike I-95, it won't have an excuse.

I'd accept I-295 but with it being signed north-south in PA, east west on former/current I-95, and changing to north-south at US 1.

Yeah, if it really is a beltway, that's how beltways are signed.

[jeffandnicole]

Because of the closeness of the cities, 295 was going to be a beltway around 3 cities - Wilmington, Philly and Trenton.  Because of the missing 95 link in North Jersey, it gets a little murky, but 295 is, in all traditional senses, a beltway.

Let's take I-476 as another example: It's a loop around Philly between I-76 and I-95.  North of that though, it loses all sense of a loop/beltway, and technically should be an odd-numbered spur away from Philly.

[akotchi]

The ultimate candy-cane shape (sort of) of DE/NJ/PA I-295 reminds me a bit of VA's I-295. 

Down there, the portion west of I-95 has no cardinal directions.  Interchange cross-street signs reference the next major route(s) -- to I-64 East/I-95 or to I-64 West -- and control cities of those routes -- Norfolk/Washington or Charlottesville.

Here the routes could be to I-95 South (which is already in the design of panels to be installed for that direction) and U.S. 1, while the control cities could be Philadelphia (again, already included) and New Brunswick.  One nit to pick is that U.S. 1 (NJ) is not as major a crossing as I-95 (VA), but it is close.

Worthy to note is that signing on I-195 West at I-295 will show "to U.S. 1" for the new northbound signing

[ekt8750]

Because of the closeness of the cities, 295 was going to be a beltway around 3 cities - Wilmington, Philly and Trenton.  Because of the missing 95 link in North Jersey, it gets a little murky, but 295 is, in all traditional senses, a beltway.

Let's take I-476 as another example: It's a loop around Philly between I-76 and I-95.  North of that though, it loses all sense of a loop/beltway, and technically should be an odd-numbered spur away from Philly.

I-476 qualifies for an even number as it bisects its parent. It could also be an odd numbered spur off I-95 though.