AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: NJ - 295/76/42 Construction Projects  (Read 223228 times)

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15321
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: November 21, 2022, 03:12:52 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #50 on: March 25, 2013, 09:27:12 PM »

I hope everyone understands that there are wetlands where NJ 42 crosses over the Turnpike, so good luck convincing the state to mitigate them for a connection between the two roads.
That, and not enough room for proper interchange construction given the volume that would use the connection. That's why updating the Benigno Blvd. corridor makes much more sense.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11131
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: October 23, 2022, 10:20:04 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #51 on: March 25, 2013, 11:56:19 PM »

I hope everyone understands that there are wetlands where NJ 42 crosses over the Turnpike, so good luck convincing the state to mitigate them for a connection between the two roads.
That, and not enough room for proper interchange construction given the volume that would use the connection. That's why updating the Benigno Blvd. corridor makes much more sense.

Has someone actually modeled the demand for a connection between the Turnpike and N.J. 42?
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13640
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 05:48:30 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #52 on: March 26, 2013, 09:19:01 AM »

I'm sure there's been many drawing for one! :-)

The biggest hinderence would've been where to put a toll plaza.  With the Turnpike's expected move to all-electronic tolling, the toll plaza probably isn't that big of a deal, and individual ramps can be constructed that don't need to tie into a single toll plaza.

There are a few challanges here - On Rt. 42, Exits for Creek Rd & Rt. 55 are close to the turnpike, and the Exit for Rt. 544 is within a mile as well.  The 295/42 missing move ramps will touchdown near the area as well.  On the Turnpike, existing Exit 3 is 2 miles to the north, and the Turnpike has generally disapproved of close interchanges especially in the southern part of the state.

The whole area is wetlands, and while ramps can be built on pilings, it greatly drives up the cost.  In various corners of the intersection of 42 & the Turnpike, there's a shopping center, an industrial park, a capped landfill that will become a shopping center, and a 55 & over housing development.  Sure, they're not right up against the intersection, but they will restrict where the ramps could go. 

From what I can gather, the toughest ramps to construct would be those to and from Rt. 42 South. 

Can it be done?  Absolutely.  Anything can be done anywhere.  There's just a lot to work around.
Logged

ARMOURERERIC

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1234
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Morganton NC
  • Last Login: Today at 08:01:50 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #53 on: March 26, 2013, 03:39:04 PM »

Feel free to move this to fictional:

Built a trumpet on the NJTP at Caulfield Ave, build a 4 lane access controlled facility along the ROW of Caulfield over Clements Bridge to the trumpet bridge for Deptford Ctr over 55, put a cloverleaf in insteat of the trumpet at Deptford Ctr.  Deptford Center gets upgraded to whatever the ADT requires then goes to a semi-directional to 42 south.  Caulfield seems to have few homes and a wider clear ROW
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13640
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 05:48:30 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #54 on: March 26, 2013, 03:53:43 PM »

Feel free to move this to fictional:

Built a trumpet on the NJTP at Caulfield Ave, build a 4 lane access controlled facility along the ROW of Caulfield over Clements Bridge to the trumpet bridge for Deptford Ctr over 55, put a cloverleaf in insteat of the trumpet at Deptford Ctr.  Deptford Center gets upgraded to whatever the ADT requires then goes to a semi-directional to 42 south.  Caulfield seems to have few homes and a wider clear ROW

Caulfied is actually quite residential with a 35 mph speed limit.  My grandparents lived just off that road for many years, in fact, predating the NJ Turnpike!

There were plans to convert the Rt. 55/Deptford Center Rd to a full interchange, with the missing leg coming out to Greenbrier Ln. at Clements Bridge Rd.  I think I may even have them saved somewhere from a public meeting.  Obviously, that went nowhere.

Regardless, none of this solves problem of a lack of an interchange with the Turnpike & 42, which is what people actually want. I know - with this plan, motorists can get from the Turnpike to 42 via 55 and Deptford Center Rd.  But...that's basically what we have now with the current Exit 3.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11131
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: October 23, 2022, 10:20:04 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #55 on: March 26, 2013, 04:08:14 PM »

I'm sure there's been many drawing for one! :-)

The biggest hinderence would've been where to put a toll plaza.  With the Turnpike's expected move to all-electronic tolling, the toll plaza probably isn't that big of a deal, and individual ramps can be constructed that don't need to tie into a single toll plaza.

And even if the Turnpike Authority has not gotten to all cashless operation, it could designate an Exit 2A as E-ZPass only.

There are a few challanges here - On Rt. 42, Exits for Creek Rd & Rt. 55 are close to the turnpike, and the Exit for Rt. 544 is within a mile as well.  The 295/42 missing move ramps will touchdown near the area as well.  On the Turnpike, existing Exit 3 is 2 miles to the north, and the Turnpike has generally disapproved of close interchanges especially in the southern part of the state.

An Exit 2A would indeed be fairly close to existing Exit 3.  There would need to be a lot of "flying" ramps to connect to 42.

The whole area is wetlands, and while ramps can be built on pilings, it greatly drives up the cost.  In various corners of the intersection of 42 & the Turnpike, there's a shopping center, an industrial park, a capped landfill that will become a shopping center, and a 55 & over housing development.  Sure, they're not right up against the intersection, but they will restrict where the ramps could go.

All correct.  But it is possible to build an interchange over an area with a lot of wetlands, or even plain water - not so far from South Jersey is the interchange south of the Fort McHenry Tunnel of I-95 (Exit 52) and I-395 - nearly all of it built above a saltwater arm of the Patapsco River (Google Maps here).

And if there's a highway agency with the engineering know-how on-staff or under contract to build something like this, it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.

From what I can gather, the toughest ramps to construct would be those to and from Rt. 42 South. 

Can it be done?  Absolutely.  Anything can be done anywhere.  There's just a lot to work around.

Were NJDOT and the Turnpike Authority to get serious about this project, I am sure that there would be many self-described experts who would make claims like "it can't be built."
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 04:11:49 PM by cpzilliacus »
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15321
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: November 21, 2022, 03:12:52 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #56 on: March 26, 2013, 06:24:58 PM »


The biggest hindrance would've been where to put a toll plaza.  With the Turnpike's expected move to all-electronic tolling, the toll plaza probably isn't that big of a deal, and individual ramps can be constructed that don't need to tie into a single toll plaza.

Expected move... when, though? I've heard no timetable for the Turnpike - they may have speculated a few years ago, but that's been drawn back off the table.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11131
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: October 23, 2022, 10:20:04 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #57 on: March 26, 2013, 07:30:45 PM »


The biggest hindrance would've been where to put a toll plaza.  With the Turnpike's expected move to all-electronic tolling, the toll plaza probably isn't that big of a deal, and individual ramps can be constructed that don't need to tie into a single toll plaza.

Expected move... when, though? I've heard no timetable for the Turnpike - they may have speculated a few years ago, but that's been drawn back off the table.

I think that conversion to cashless will happen eventually (Peter Samuel of TOLLROADSNews reported speculation in 2012 that the GSP might be converted to cashless before the Turnpike). 

The benefits (in terms of lower operating costs, safety and reduced vehicle emissions) are too great to ignore.

But perhaps the N.J. Turnpike Authority wants to wait and see how things shake out next door on the Pennsylvania Turnpike's network, which has stated on-record that it is going to convert to cashless (and Peter reported (also in 2012) that some outfit named HNTB ;-) was awarded the contract to manage the conversion to cashless in  Penn's Woods).
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13640
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 05:48:30 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #58 on: March 27, 2013, 09:55:40 AM »

Correct - no timetable, and a lot of it is probably appeasing the Turnpike's Toll union.  It's going to happen, no doubt.  Just a matter of when.  EZ Pass usage is over 80% on both toll roads, I believe.


The whole area is wetlands, and while ramps can be built on pilings, it greatly drives up the cost.  In various corners of the intersection of 42 & the Turnpike, there's a shopping center, an industrial park, a capped landfill that will become a shopping center, and a 55 & over housing development.  Sure, they're not right up against the intersection, but they will restrict where the ramps could go.

All correct.  But it is possible to build an interchange over an area with a lot of wetlands, or even plain water - not so far from South Jersey is the interchange south of the Fort McHenry Tunnel of I-95 (Exit 52) and I-395 - nearly all of it built above a saltwater arm of the Patapsco River (Google Maps here).

And if there's a highway agency with the engineering know-how on-staff or under contract to build something like this, it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.

It's not a matter of knowing how to do it, it's a matter of NJ's very strict environmental regulations.  NJ Environmentalists seem ready to pounce on any project that involves disturbing even a puddle of water.  It can be done; it just take a lot of patience and expense. 
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11131
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: October 23, 2022, 10:20:04 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #59 on: March 27, 2013, 10:39:13 AM »

It's not a matter of knowing how to do it, it's a matter of NJ's very strict environmental regulations.  NJ Environmentalists seem ready to pounce on any project that involves disturbing even a puddle of water.  It can be done; it just take a lot of patience and expense. 

Maryland is probably as strict.  Goodness knows we have a loud and well-funded anti-highway cabal.

And there are federal and state laws and regulations, some of which are redundant, but must be complied with.  The federal ones include Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the  Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 and Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Chris19001

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 199
  • Location: Abington, PA
  • Last Login: November 23, 2022, 09:16:40 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #60 on: March 27, 2013, 01:33:09 PM »

For a NJTP build-in, couldn't NJDOT just simplify the whole idea of a transfer between the I-295 and NJTP? 
All they would need to do is offer a way to get from southbound 295 to/from southbound NJTP, and northbound 295 to/from northbound NJTP somewhere north of the 42 interchange. 
The movements don't have to be at the 42 interchange itself, and the other movements between 295 and the NJTP could be left to what's there presently?
I could never figure out why the NJTP and I-295 couldn't just build a few slip ramps when they are so close together for miles.
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13640
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 05:48:30 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #61 on: March 27, 2013, 02:21:30 PM »

For a NJTP build-in, couldn't NJDOT just simplify the whole idea of a transfer between the I-295 and NJTP? 
All they would need to do is offer a way to get from southbound 295 to/from southbound NJTP, and northbound 295 to/from northbound NJTP somewhere north of the 42 interchange. 
The movements don't have to be at the 42 interchange itself, and the other movements between 295 and the NJTP could be left to what's there presently?
I could never figure out why the NJTP and I-295 couldn't just build a few slip ramps when they are so close together for miles.

The NJ Turnpike and the rest of New Jersey might as well be two separate countries.  For two roads so close together, they are so far apart.

NJDOT has gotten better in using their VMS signage to mention issues on the NJ Turnpike, especially heavy congestion and closures.  But, rarely (and honestly, I can't think of any examples) does the NJ Turnpike mention issues on I-295 or other state roadways.  One would think the Turnpike should...after all, in most cases the suggested alternate route would be to remain on the turnpike, increasing the money the 'pike would take in from the motorist.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14327
  • fuck

  • Age: 14
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: November 20, 2022, 04:21:25 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #62 on: March 27, 2013, 03:03:47 PM »

For a NJTP build-in, couldn't NJDOT just simplify the whole idea of a transfer between the I-295 and NJTP?
This. If the 295-42 missing ramps are built, all you need is a pair of slip ramps along the long parallel to the north. No need to spend billions on a redundant interchange just to satisfy CP's dislike of "breezewoods".
Logged
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

I agree to indemnify Belkin against unauthorized use of its MiniVak vacuum.

Delrey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1
  • Waiting to drive the missing link in NJ

  • Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Last Login: April 01, 2013, 02:39:48 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #63 on: April 01, 2013, 02:22:45 PM »

Hello all, newbie here. Just wondering why the AC Expressway / NJ 42 can't be signed also as I-76 east? Similar to the PA and KS turnpikes? Why did the state choose to go this route instead of just continuing on with an actual tolled interstate? Furthermore, why is this area of the country so defiantly different from the norm or standard? Guessing something to do with age of the roads and layouts? My apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere on the forum, I did do a search, but ended up here. Thanks in advance.
Logged

Roadgeek2500

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 99
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA.
  • Last Login: November 26, 2022, 09:59:08 AM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #64 on: April 01, 2013, 04:52:43 PM »

Well, the main reason I-76 cant be extended all the way is because the AC Expy. ends ant a traffic light, and some of it isn't up to today's (MUTCD) standards.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 13439
  • Age: 31
  • Location: NY's Capital District
  • Last Login: Today at 08:44:57 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #65 on: April 01, 2013, 04:58:55 PM »

There are plenty of interstates that end at traffic lights.  Pretty sure there's nothing against that as long as there are no at-grades between the ends.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11131
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: October 23, 2022, 10:20:04 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #66 on: April 01, 2013, 08:20:31 PM »

The NJ Turnpike and the rest of New Jersey might as well be two separate countries.  For two roads so close together, they are so far apart.

That is unfortunate - and it is (IMO) a failure of New Jersey's elected officials to insist (through legislation, if needed) that the N.J. Turnpike Authority must play ball with the NJDOT.  Like it or not, they are parts of one transportation system, even if the Turnpike gets to charge tolls and the DOT does not. 

NJDOT has gotten better in using their VMS signage to mention issues on the NJ Turnpike, especially heavy congestion and closures.  But, rarely (and honestly, I can't think of any examples) does the NJ Turnpike mention issues on I-295 or other state roadways.  One would think the Turnpike should...after all, in most cases the suggested alternate route would be to remain on the turnpike, increasing the money the 'pike would take in from the motorist.

In terms of operations (and incident response) the toll road network is very nearly always a (relatively-speaking) small part of a very large system.

Regarding the Turnpike and I-295, there is some synergy there, I believe.  The Turnpike excels at serving the longer-distance "through" trips, while I-295 serves the shorter local trips (I realize that there are drivers that shunpike their way onto I-295 to save some toll dollars). 

Significant exceptions perhaps being Orlando, Florida, where all of the freeway-class roads are toll roads, with the sole exception of I-4, and the suburbs of Chicago, where most of the freeways are owned and maintained by the ISTHA.

But the attitude that "our concern ends at our exit plaza" needs to stop, though I am not sure how to make that happen, with the exception of through the  state's elected officials.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15321
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: November 21, 2022, 03:12:52 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #67 on: April 01, 2013, 08:39:16 PM »

Hello all, newbie here. Just wondering why the AC Expressway / NJ 42 can't be signed also as I-76 east? Similar to the PA and KS turnpikes? Why did the state choose to go this route instead of just continuing on with an actual tolled interstate? Furthermore, why is this area of the country so defiantly different from the norm or standard? Guessing something to do with age of the roads and layouts? My apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere on the forum, I did do a search, but ended up here. Thanks in advance.
The main reason is that NJ would have to apply for the extension, and they never did. The ACE was built when toll roads were the main way to get around, so with no through route needing to use it (unlike the northern half of the NJ Turnpike), no designation was sought.

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13640
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 05:48:30 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #68 on: April 02, 2013, 08:43:59 AM »

Well, the main reason I-76 cant be extended all the way is because the AC Expy. ends ant a traffic light, and some of it isn't up to today's (MUTCD) standards.

Is any of that true, or did someone make that up and it gets repeated over and over again?

If all it took was upgrading the highway, that could've been done a while ago. 
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7367
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: October 01, 2022, 12:12:01 AM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #69 on: April 02, 2013, 09:53:52 AM »

History of the AC Expressway can be found at:

http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/atlantic-city/

A likely reason (guess on my part) why the AC Expressway wasn't assigned as an Interstate when it was built or planned was due to the fact that at the time it was built the maximum total mileage of the National Interstate Highway System (w/its 90/10 Federal/State funding ratio that was in place at the time) was limited to 41,000 miles.  The bump-up to 42,500 miles wouldn't occur until the late 60s/early 70s. 
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Interstatefan78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 242
  • Location: Phillipsburg,NJ
  • Last Login: October 18, 2022, 09:30:34 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #70 on: April 03, 2013, 11:16:40 PM »

I would say RT-42 needs HOV lanes up to the RT-55 Interchange since NJ Transit plans a Camden to Rowan University (Glassboro) bus line and also a NJDOT draft shows HOV lanes through the I-295/76 and RT-42 interchange  http://www.nj.gov/transportation/works/studies/rt295/pdf/DraftStatementofPurpose.pdf

I recall seeing a list somewhere of the possible alternatives and/or additions to a revised interchange or traffic pattern.

HOV lanes were the first thing eliminated.  This was also at a time when the HOV lanes on I-80 in North Jersey were failing bigtime, so I think NJDOT was a bit hesitant to include them in another large scale project.  And EZ Pass was just ramping up.  A lot of congestion at that time was due to the toll plaza 4 miles ahead at the Walt Whitman Bridge. With EZ Pass usage so great now, it's eliminated the bridge congestion and the resulting advantage HOV lanes would provide. (Having said that, I take a carpool where most days 4 people are in the car. They would sometimes prove very valuable if my route had them installed.)

As far as that rail line is concerned, NJDOT/NJ Transit is heavily considering Exclusive Bus Lanes along Rt. 42 rather than a HOV lane.  The rail line will use existing Conrail tracks thru several small towns kinda/sorta parallel to NJ 45.



Do you know if there are plans to post travel times on these? That has been rather useful at for some projects in PA along the Turnpike...

What NJDOT has done in the past is use the portable VMS signs with mobile dopplar radar units.  I believe they are utilizing these again for the project.  The permanent ones I mentioned above will be used for specific messages.  BUT...

Even better...

NJDOT has started posting travel times on many of their VMS's along 295!  Currently, they appear to be doing it during rush hours in the main direction of travel.  They have been very convenient and accurate so far.  The message is very simple (maybe even a little too abbreviated, actually).  A few typical signs I see in the morning are as follows:

On 295 North after Exit 23 (US 130):

WALT       9 MIN
BEN        13 MIN
NJ70       14 MIN

And further north, say, between NJ Routes 70 & 73, the sign will show

NJ38          5 MIN
EX47        11 MIN
29/195     24 MIN

For the normal traffic, they would know the WALT to be the Walt Whitman Bridge, BEN to be the Ben Franklin Bridge, and the normal traffic would know those are destinations not reached on 295 alone. Notice the use of both route numbers and exit numbers...I guess based on what they feel people would recognize the most.  Notice too they eliminate the "Travel Times" line, mileage, etc.  From what I've seen, traffic tends to move smoothly approachign the signs, so people aren't slowing down to try to understand them.

I wished they would put a space between NJ38 (NJ 38), and there's enough room to write out EXIT 47, rather than EX47.  Signs further North will show the time to Route 1, written as US-1.

The longest line I've seen is DEL MEM BR  38 MIN, so there's about enough room for 10 characters before the time.  And on the signs on 295 South near Exit 24A & Exit 15, they take 2 lines to write the following.  No message is on the 3rd line.

COMMODORE
BARRY BR  15 MIN
Thats's great and Maybe NJDOT can use the SanDAG/ Caltrans district 11 of running buses along with cars on the Bus XBL lanes with single rides being charged a toll buses and hovs are free  but it would require buses to get off RT-42 at exit 12 and 13 to pick up bus riders on the way to Camden/Philly http://fastrak.511sd.com/san-diego-toll-roads/i-15-express-lanes  http://fastrak.511sd.com/i-15-mts-express-bus IF NJDOT follows the SD example then the buses would be marketed as RT-42/I-295 express buses, and it will require a XBL ramps to the RT-42/I-295,76 interchange :D
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13640
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 05:48:30 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #71 on: April 10, 2013, 08:48:41 AM »

http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=BZ&Dato=20130405&Kategori=HISTORIC&Lopenr=304050805&Ref=PH

Historic Pictures and maps of I-295; mostly from the 60's and 70's, with a few pics from the 80's.

Some interesting notes I noticed:

The roadway, especially from I-76/Rt. 42 North, is pretty much still in the same condition it was when originally built upwards of 40 years ago, other than surface paving.  This is especially noted at the interchanges which are of the same design as shown when built, other than maybe the addition of a traffic light. 

The Aljo curve originally had an advisory speed of 40 mph.  At some point, it became a regulatory, posted limit of 35 mph.  As shown in the pics, the curve has always had speeding problems since Day 1, with numerous overturned vehicles and fatal accidents.  The original wall in the Aljo curve after passing underneath 76 appears to be about 8'+/- high.  I'm guessing a guardrail was added in front of that later on, and then the wall was reduced in height and a concrete jersey barrier replaced the guardrail. 

A few pics are shown of I-295 in the West Deptford area (around Exits 20 - 22).  In this area, I-295 was built in the 1970's and multiplexed with US 130.  The at-grade access to the businesses was kept intact, with a 50 mph limit on 295/130.  In the late 80's (I barely remember that construction - I was about 15 at the time), the highway was upgraded to standard interstate highway conditions. The local businesses were not happy they were losing their convenient access to the highway.

In one pic, you can see I-76's Express/Local lane split (the snow covers a small concrete curb).  The far side is I-76 East, and that split was removed about a decade ago.  The near side is I-76 West, and that split should be removed either this year or next year.  One plan I saw for the removal and subsequent repaving entails spliting WB traffic into 3 cattleshutes - a dual lane to the right utilizing the Local Lane's right lane and right shoudler, a single lane utilizing the Express Lane's left lane, and a contraflow dual lane utilizing I-76 EB's left shoulder and left lane.  The rest of I-76 EB will be shifted to the right.
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 41
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #72 on: April 10, 2013, 09:35:16 AM »

http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=BZ&Dato=20130405&Kategori=HISTORIC&Lopenr=304050805&Ref=PH


some awesome signs in that batch, including a 1962 outline-shield green sign, and a 1973 photo of an unveiling with what appears to be a 4 foot I-295 shield.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7367
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: October 01, 2022, 12:12:01 AM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #73 on: April 10, 2013, 10:08:54 AM »

A few pics are shown of I-295 in the West Deptford area (around Exits 20 - 22).  In this area, I-295 was built in the 1970's and multiplexed with US 130.  The at-grade access to the businesses was kept intact, with a 50 mph limit on 295/130.  In the late 80's (I barely remember that construction - I was about 15 at the time), the highway was upgraded to standard interstate highway conditions. The local businesses were not happy they were losing their convenient access to the highway.
That corridor upgrade actually occurred during the 1990s.  When I first moved to the Delaware Valley in July 1990, reconstruction of that corridor was still in the very early preliminary stages.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13640
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 05:48:30 PM
Re: NJ - 295/76/42 Direct Connection Construction
« Reply #74 on: April 10, 2013, 10:29:52 AM »

Philly.com, which has an excellent inventory of older newspaper articles, indicates the construction occurred from 1989-1992 (originally scheduled for 88-91).  At the time, the project was the state's most expensive highway project, at a whole $106 million. This was also found in one of the articles: "'This is the so-called missing link (of I-295) in New Jersey,' said DOT engineer Frank Scymanski."

At least 295 existed in that area, even if it was in name only.  I guess Scymanski wasn't familiar with the lack of any sort of I-295 between Exits 57 & 61 near DOT's Trenton area offices, which didn't open until 1994.


The West Deptford area project was definitely completed in 1993, when I started driving.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.