New Jersey

[jeffandnicole]

IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south.  Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.

I'd like to know the debate that went on and who agreed to the cardinal direction changes.

[02 Park Ave]

The I-195 exits for I-295 should be 0A and 0B.

Perhaps this renumbering will inspire NJDOT and DRPA to correct the numbering of I-76's exits here in NJ.

[Alps]

I-287/I-78 interchange map improvements

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/projectmap.pdf


I see this is like CT, I bet the flyover ramp was complained about so they did a loop right?
Even though it takes up MORE space.

No no no. I-78 EB to I-287 NB remains the high-speed connection that it is now. Anything other than a loop for I-78 EB to 202/206 would require additional work to fit in the interchange and isn't really necessary.

My understanding was that the whole point of this project was driven by eliminating the left-hand entrance ramp onto 287NB from 78EB and moving it to a right hand ramp so that there would be less weaving both of trucks needing to get out of the left lane and also for traffic trying to fly over to get off at 202-206?? This includes getting rid of the existing ramp and moving it so it flys over 287NB and loops around where that unused ramp exists. Part of why they're moving the 287NB to 78EB ramp to make room for this (and improve its geometry). Or am I wrong?

Nopers. They're eliminating the weave by putting in the new ramp, but the existing left entrance shall remain. What, you think a 2-lane high speed roadway is getting replaced by a 1-lane loop?

[NJRoadfan]

Nopers. They're eliminating the weave by putting in the new ramp, but the existing left entrance shall remain. What, you think a 2-lane high speed roadway is getting replaced by a 1-lane loop?

The project's website says otherwise: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/

A new flyover ramp from I-78 eastbound which connects with a right side entry to I-287 northbound by means of a new loop ramp. This new loop ramp will eliminate the existing ramp along with its left side entry to I-287 northbound.

Removal is detailed in this graphic: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/stageIIIB.pdf

[Alps]

Nopers. They're eliminating the weave by putting in the new ramp, but the existing left entrance shall remain. What, you think a 2-lane high speed roadway is getting replaced by a 1-lane loop?

The project's website says otherwise: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/

A new flyover ramp from I-78 eastbound which connects with a right side entry to I-287 northbound by means of a new loop ramp. This new loop ramp will eliminate the existing ramp along with its left side entry to I-287 northbound.

Removal is detailed in this graphic: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/stageIIIB.pdf

Shit. I've been in denial. This is terrible. Also it's only a one lane existing ramp. Take away my roadgeek crown.

[storm2k]

Nopers. They're eliminating the weave by putting in the new ramp, but the existing left entrance shall remain. What, you think a 2-lane high speed roadway is getting replaced by a 1-lane loop?

The project's website says otherwise: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/

A new flyover ramp from I-78 eastbound which connects with a right side entry to I-287 northbound by means of a new loop ramp. This new loop ramp will eliminate the existing ramp along with its left side entry to I-287 northbound.

Removal is detailed in this graphic: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/stageIIIB.pdf

Shit. I've been in denial. This is terrible. Also it's only a one lane existing ramp. Take away my roadgeek crown.

Yeah, the double lane is onto 287SB, not NB.

[yakra]

What's up with the existing loop ramp anyway? Historic Aerials shows it was constructed between `79 & `87, but at no point does it actually appear to be in service...

[storm2k]

What's up with the existing loop ramp anyway? Historic Aerials shows it was constructed between `79 & `87, but at no point does it actually appear to be in service...

This was discussed earlier in this thread. You just have to go back and find it.

[yakra]

Haha, I was just about to post about how I didn't find replies #1521 and #1522. Just what I was looking for.

^^ It was a temporary ramp built when the existing left-entry ramp needed to be closed for redecking of the two bridges on the ramp.  Left in after that work was done to use for emergency conditions.

This is exactly what I was beginning to suspect.

[jp the roadgeek]

IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south.  Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.

I'd like to know the debate that went on and who agreed to the cardinal direction changes.

I think PennDOT labeled it East-West (it kind of moves from SW-NE in an inverse I-89 sort of way) so that at the Scudders Falls Bridge you wouldn't go from 295 North to 295 South and vice versa, and confuse the long distance driver.  If actual cardinal directions were followed and it went from North-South in PA to East-West and North-South again, you would have a non-conforming highway on the NJ side.  PA would be fine, but to be compliant in NJ, the mileposts would have to remain as they are now, starting at 0 at the state line, going up in number to the directional change, then going down in number to the Delaware Bridge.  Exit numbers would have to remain as they are now, but you would have 2 sets of numbers for the same highway in the same state, which would be a violation.  I know I-495 has 2 sets of numbers in VA on the DC beltway, but since I-495 on the Springfield-Wilson Bridge portion predates I-95, it was retained for continuity on the Beltway, and if you eliminated I-495 on the eastern portion of the beltway, you would have a similar situation as I-295. I-495 numbers, to be conforming, would have to start in Springfield and go up as you headed clockwise up to 30 in Silver Spring, then all of a sudden change to 27 and go down while remaining on the same roadway (not that that sudden change from 30 to 27 while remaining on the same roadway doesn't happen someplace else thanks to NYSDOT and ConnDOT).  I suppose you could eliminate I-495 from Springfield to the Wilson Bridge and get away with it as it is now, but why bother?

Long story short, the I-195 designation would have worked because you could retain the North-South designation that PennDOT would have used in NJ from Scudders Falls to US 1, then change to East-West and not have to change mileposts because they would be conforming; going up as you go east.  However, PennDOT and NJDOT just felt it was easier not to have I-195 exit itself and pull a modified version of the I-76/I-80 bump, and all of a sudden have the exit numbers and mileposts increasing to 60 with the next milepost being 15 and then start decreasing (vice versa in the opposite direction)  while remaining on the thru route.

[jeffandnicole]

Using 195 still would've created a wrong way situation, as from Exit 60 to just south of Exit 67  I-295 goes mainly in a NNE direction, but would've been know as 195 West. And likewise, 195 East woulsve been going in a SSW direction.

[jp the roadgeek]

Using 195 still would've created a wrong way situation, as from Exit 60 to just south of Exit 67  I-295 goes mainly in a NNE direction, but would've been know as 195 West. And likewise, 195 East woulsve been going in a SSW direction.

It's as much a violation as I-278 over the Queens portion of the Triboro Bridge when you're heading east into Queens on I-278 West and west when you're heading to Randall's Island on I-278 East. Or on I-95 North when you're heading generally SSE just before the GWB.  I think you could fudge it for this stretch.

[Alps]

IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south.  Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.

I'd like to know the debate that went on and who agreed to the cardinal direction changes.

I think PennDOT labeled it East-West (it kind of moves from SW-NE in an inverse I-89 sort of way) so that at the Scudders Falls Bridge you wouldn't go from 295 North to 295 South and vice versa, and confuse the long distance driver.  If actual cardinal directions were followed and it went from North-South in PA to East-West and North-South again, you would have a non-conforming highway on the NJ side.  PA would be fine, but to be compliant in NJ, the mileposts would have to remain as they are now, starting at 0 at the state line, going up in number to the directional change, then going down in number to the Delaware Bridge.

Nope, wrong. If a route has an eastern and a southern terminus in a single state, you pick one to start from and go consistently from there. You don't count back down just because the route changes direction. That has never happened anywhere among all the routes that change direction within a state.

[Alps]

Using 195 still would've created a wrong way situation, as from Exit 60 to just south of Exit 67  I-295 goes mainly in a NNE direction, but would've been know as 195 West. And likewise, 195 East woulsve been going in a SSW direction.

It's as much a violation as I-278 over the Queens portion of the Triboro Bridge when you're heading east into Queens on I-278 West and west when you're heading to Randall's Island on I-278 East. Or on I-95 North when you're heading generally SSE just before the GWB.  I think you could fudge it for this stretch.

You could. My problems were that doing so would result in renumbering all of the exits along I-195 as well as the 15 affected miles of I-295, and that you're looking at one-lane ramp connections for a through route. Keeping it as 295 minimizes the renumbering of exits and maintains the through route. The floated I-895 would also have worked toward this end.

[plain]

I actually like the idea of I-895 for this situation. It would be the least confusing for motorists.

[_Simon]

IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south.  Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.

I'd like to know the debate that went on and who agreed to the cardinal direction changes.

I think PennDOT labeled it East-West (it kind of moves from SW-NE in an inverse I-89 sort of way) so that at the Scudders Falls Bridge you wouldn't go from 295 North to 295 South and vice versa, and confuse the long distance driver.  If actual cardinal directions were followed and it went from North-South in PA to East-West and North-South again, you would have a non-conforming highway on the NJ side.  PA would be fine, but to be compliant in NJ, the mileposts would have to remain as they are now, starting at 0 at the state line, going up in number to the directional change, then going down in number to the Delaware Bridge.

Nope, wrong. If a route has an eastern and a southern terminus in a single state, you pick one to start from and go consistently from there. You don't count back down just because the route changes direction. That has never happened anywhere among all the routes that change direction within a state.

Unless the route has distinct EB/WB and NB/SB legs that just happen to use the same number like NJ-7.   But yes , those show up in the SLD as a different road segment rather than just the names for the primary and secondary direction changing midway.

I also don't support any of this and would be willing to launch a "how about you just build the missing highway instead of confusing people?" Campaign.  It would never happen anytime soon but raising awareness that were still missing a major arterial is the type of subject Vox should do a video on.  As a tax payer I feel cheated.


SM-G955U

[jwolfer]

IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south.  Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.

I'd like to know the debate that went on and who agreed to the cardinal direction changes.

I think PennDOT labeled it East-West (it kind of moves from SW-NE in an inverse I-89 sort of way) so that at the Scudders Falls Bridge you wouldn't go from 295 North to 295 South and vice versa, and confuse the long distance driver.  If actual cardinal directions were followed and it went from North-South in PA to East-West and North-South again, you would have a non-conforming highway on the NJ side.  PA would be fine, but to be compliant in NJ, the mileposts would have to remain as they are now, starting at 0 at the state line, going up in number to the directional change, then going down in number to the Delaware Bridge.

Nope, wrong. If a route has an eastern and a southern terminus in a single state, you pick one to start from and go consistently from there. You don't count back down just because the route changes direction. That has never happened anywhere among all the routes that change direction within a state.

Beltway's are a special case and have rules with exit numbering. I think they start at the South or west junction with parent and go clockwise( not sure if I am right so don't jump all over me if I am wrong) Jacksonville Florida beltway is counter- clock wise because the west beltway existed first. But there are Wrong way exits on the east belway... Exit number increase going south.

Z981

[jeffandnicole]

I actually like the idea of I-895 for this situation. It would be the least confusing for motorists.

Do you mean the declining number of motorists that truly pay attention to Exit numbers, or the increasing number of motorists that rely on their GPS and will gladly turn onto train tracks or a boat ramp if their GPS says to turn right?

Talk to most motorists, and they know their exit by either Exit number, route number, city name, or because they always look for a certain sign.  Rarely do they know all the info for their exits.  It's actually amazing what many motorists don't know...or pay attention to.

[vdeane]

I'd rather the directions match the way the road goes in the state rather than get anal about the exit numbers when a road turns the "wrong" way.  Beltways do it all the time, the Thruway does it, why can't I-295 in NJ do it?  I'd rather the exits go the "wrong" way on an east-west section at the tail end of the road than have a very obviously north-south road get labeled east-west because NJ doesn't want to change directions at US 1 (especially since the only reason any section of the road would be east-west is so the directions don't flip at the state border).

[jp the roadgeek]

IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south.  Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.

I'd like to know the debate that went on and who agreed to the cardinal direction changes.

I think PennDOT labeled it East-West (it kind of moves from SW-NE in an inverse I-89 sort of way) so that at the Scudders Falls Bridge you wouldn't go from 295 North to 295 South and vice versa, and confuse the long distance driver.  If actual cardinal directions were followed and it went from North-South in PA to East-West and North-South again, you would have a non-conforming highway on the NJ side.  PA would be fine, but to be compliant in NJ, the mileposts would have to remain as they are now, starting at 0 at the state line, going up in number to the directional change, then going down in number to the Delaware Bridge.

Nope, wrong. If a route has an eastern and a southern terminus in a single state, you pick one to start from and go consistently from there. You don't count back down just because the route changes direction. That has never happened anywhere among all the routes that change direction within a state.

Beltway's are a special case and have rules with exit numbering. I think they start at the South or west junction with parent and go clockwise( not sure if I am right so don't jump all over me if I am wrong) Jacksonville Florida beltway is counter- clock wise because the west beltway existed first. But there are Wrong way exits on the east belway... Exit number increase going south.

Z981

The 2 beltway many people think of (DC and Baltimore) are interesting cases.  Baltimore uses sequential numbers, but mileposts begin near the southernmost point just east of the Curtis Creek drawbridge; the Southwest junction with I-95 is at MP 7.  DC's beltway was affected when I-95 through the city was cancelled.  The mileposts from Springfield to the Wilson Bridge are a continuation of I-95 mileposts.  The numbers reset to 0 for MD, and the numbers as you go counterclockwise increase, and I-495 retains Beltway mileage past the Silver Spring split and continues back to Springfield.  DC is the only one whose exits increase counterclockwise; Indy, Columbus, and Cincinnati all increase clockwise from a southern or southwest junction (the parent in Cincy and Indy, I-71 in Columbus).

[roadman65]

You could also do what Virginia does on both I-64 and I-295.  Leave off the direction tabs and sign it as its control cities like they already have on the ACE. 

It could be Philadelphia bound north of US 1 and Princeton Bound heading on the current I-95 and future SB I-295 in NJ.  The exit numbers cannot be perfect as they are not in VA.  I-64 have its numbers continuing to climb even after I-264 on the east side of Norfolk where I-64 east goes west to Bowers Hill.  The numbers I would imagine have not confused motorists in Hampton Roads. 

Heck I would feel that using Richmond from US 17 in Chesapeake going the wrong way on I-64 due to it using I-664 from Bowers Hill to Hampton and back the right way on I-64 would be more confusing then exit numbers going the other way.

[jp the roadgeek]

It could be Philadelphia bound north of US 1 and Princeton Bound heading on the current I-95 and future SB I-295 in NJ.  The exit numbers cannot be perfect as they are not in VA.

Philadelphia is the current control city south on I-295 from US 1 (other than the old signs that said "Penna"). What PennDOT needs to do on I-95 from north of Center City is to either add New York as a control city or change Trenton to NYC, and from Woodhaven Rd North, include TO I-295 so as not to confuse the long distance driver when I-95 is shifted onto the Turnpike Extension.  Future signage should say I-95 North/New York from Center City to Academy Rd, then I-95 North TO I-295/New York-Trenton from Woodhaven Rd north.   

[swiftdo]

Has anyone noticed this? I drove on 208 this weekend from 4 to Ridgewood and the new mileage signs all show US 208 instead of NJ 208. It was well past sunset, so I couldn't take a good shot, but does anyone know if it's like that the whole way from 4 to 287?

[roadman65]

It could be Philadelphia bound north of US 1 and Princeton Bound heading on the current I-95 and future SB I-295 in NJ.  The exit numbers cannot be perfect as they are not in VA.

Philadelphia is the current control city south on I-295 from US 1 (other than the old signs that said "Penna"). What PennDOT needs to do on I-95 from north of Center City is to either add New York as a control city or change Trenton to NYC, and from Woodhaven Rd North, include TO I-295 so as not to confuse the long distance driver when I-95 is shifted onto the Turnpike Extension.  Future signage should say I-95 North/New York from Center City to Academy Rd, then I-95 North TO I-295/New York-Trenton from Woodhaven Rd north.   

That would be like getting Maryland to replace New York with either Wilmington or Philadelphia or getting PennDOT also to remove Plymouth Meeting for NB I-476 in favor of Allentown.  Good luck there.

Also did PennDOT get rid of Trenton as NB I-95 control city from US 1 near Oxford Valley?  If they don't it will make I-295 even more awkward then it already is directing you wrong for a city you can get to by the continuing freeway that is the scenario now.

[PHLBOS]

I've mentioned this many pages back & I will state such again: the currently-proposed direction cardinal changes for the stretch of I-95 that will become I-295 makes absolutely no sense; and, mark my words & bet your bottom dollar, once signs start popping up that read "295 NORTH Philadelphia" news organizations will broadcast such to literally embarrass the decision-makers regarding such.

If 295 is to be used: the solution is obvious; keep the PA stretch as north-south and make the NJ stretch between the PA border & US 1 as east-west but continue the mile marker/interchange numbers as if the direction cardinals don't change.  Since the road in this area acts like a beltway; there is precedence for to do such.

Otherwise & as others (myself included) have suggested; redesignate the 95 stretch as separate 3di (I-695 would be my choice).  Such would actually eliminate any need for NJDOT to alter the mile-markers/interchange numbers along that particular stretch.  Since many are already used to the highway changing numbers at the US 1 interchange (since 1994); resigning I-95 south as I-695 west would likely not be a big deal.

Historical side note: prior to the Interstate system, this highway was originally planned as NJ 129 (saw this on an old 1957 layout plan for Trenton-Mercer Airport (TTN)) & such probably would've been signed as an east-west road had the Interstate Highway Act not happened.

It's interesting that NJDOT's including changes to the I-195/295 & US 206 interchange numbers as well.  Such are independent of the I-95/295 stretch and IMHO should've been 1A-B-C-D from the get-go.