I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[1995hoo]

Philadelphia is inconsequential and there is no reason for it to be listed.

as inconsequential as any other city in US outside of NYC, LA, and  Chicago.

Yeah, the next destination on i-95 NB should be Wilmington.

Everyone knows the real Wilmington is in North Carolina.

[KEVIN_224]

What about Massachusetts? Theirs is along I-93, on the way to New Hampshire. 

[ipeters61]

Philadelphia is inconsequential and there is no reason for it to be listed.

as inconsequential as any other city in US outside of NYC, LA, and  Chicago.

Yeah, the next destination on i-95 NB should be Wilmington.

Everyone knows the real Wilmington is in North Carolina.

Considering when I google things referring to "Wilmington," it gives me the one that's not 45 minutes from where I live (and the economic center of the state I live in), it sometimes thinks that I want Wilmington NC, that really seems to be the case...

[SignBridge]

We've been arguing about BGS destinations on these boards for as long as I can remember. I myself disagree with many posted control cities and destinations the same as everyone here. But the truth is that no matter what cities, regions, bridges, and tunnels are used, it's impossible to please everybody. Someone will always disagree and say a different place should have been used. So maybe we should give it a rest already. LOL

[Beltway]

My only 'nit' would be the use of "New York" when "New York City" would be more specific as to what part of the state that they were referring to.

Oh, but it's a city in a different state from where the sign is located. It should therefore be "New York NY".

I do realize that the official name of the city is City of New York.

So I suppose it could be argued as to how to display it on a highway sign.

[mrsman]

I am long time follower of AA roads. This is my first post! Here is the reply I got from MdTA several months back regarding I-95 N signs. I guess they will not change signs despite completion of interchange.

We appreciate your interest in our facilities. Guide sign destinations are an important part of our freeway navigational system, which provides unfamiliar motorists with destinations and landmarks as directional guidance.  As a result, guide sign destinations are used at numerous locations along an Interstate Highway, including along approach roadways and at key decision points along the length of the roadway.

Within Maryland, I-95 northbound is signed using the destination "NEW YORK" for guide signs along the I-95 Mainline and approach roadways between Caton Avenue (Exit 50) and the Delaware State Line.  This provides a clear and consistent message for all motorists regarding the northbound route destination.  When northbound motorists reach Delaware they are provided with guidance to take I-95 North to reach "PHILADELPHIA" and I-295/The NJ Turnpike to reach "NY-NJ".

Using "NEW YORK" as the guide sign destination clearly captures all north bound motorists regardless of their ultimate destination without presenting information which could confuse motorists destined for an interim destination.  It also maintains consistency with signing along all approach roadways and in adjacent jurisdictions.

Federal regulations limit the number of destinations which can be shown on guide signs to two per sign, which allows the display of one destination in each direction (i.e. New York and Washington, DC).  Adding additional destinations causes confusion for motorists at a time when they are processing significant amounts of information as part of the driving task.

We appreciate your concern of the signing message; however, we are unable to accommodate your request at this time.

Welcome to the group, and thanks for your input.


I read the MdTA statement as basically saying that they may have had good reason to sign New York in the past, namely that the main road to the north is the NJTP, not 95 through Philly, and that you can't get to the north from Philly without some form of detour off the expressway system.

And now that I-95 is completed in such fashion that you can get to NYC via Philly, MdTA is unwilling to spend any money on updating their signage.

As a roadgeek, I would prefer Philadelphia.  As a MD taxpayer, I wouldn't want them spending the money to change what are otherwise pretty good and effective signs.

[famartin]

I am long time follower of AA roads. This is my first post! Here is the reply I got from MdTA several months back regarding I-95 N signs. I guess they will not change signs despite completion of interchange.

We appreciate your interest in our facilities. Guide sign destinations are an important part of our freeway navigational system, which provides unfamiliar motorists with destinations and landmarks as directional guidance.  As a result, guide sign destinations are used at numerous locations along an Interstate Highway, including along approach roadways and at key decision points along the length of the roadway.

Within Maryland, I-95 northbound is signed using the destination "NEW YORK" for guide signs along the I-95 Mainline and approach roadways between Caton Avenue (Exit 50) and the Delaware State Line.  This provides a clear and consistent message for all motorists regarding the northbound route destination.  When northbound motorists reach Delaware they are provided with guidance to take I-95 North to reach "PHILADELPHIA" and I-295/The NJ Turnpike to reach "NY-NJ".

Using "NEW YORK" as the guide sign destination clearly captures all north bound motorists regardless of their ultimate destination without presenting information which could confuse motorists destined for an interim destination.  It also maintains consistency with signing along all approach roadways and in adjacent jurisdictions.

Federal regulations limit the number of destinations which can be shown on guide signs to two per sign, which allows the display of one destination in each direction (i.e. New York and Washington, DC).  Adding additional destinations causes confusion for motorists at a time when they are processing significant amounts of information as part of the driving task.

We appreciate your concern of the signing message; however, we are unable to accommodate your request at this time.

Welcome to the group, and thanks for your input.


I read the MdTA statement as basically saying that they may have had good reason to sign New York in the past, namely that the main road to the north is the NJTP, not 95 through Philly, and that you can't get to the north from Philly without some form of detour off the expressway system.

And now that I-95 is completed in such fashion that you can get to NYC via Philly, MdTA is unwilling to spend any money on updating their signage.

As a roadgeek, I would prefer Philadelphia.  As a MD taxpayer, I wouldn't want them spending the money to change what are otherwise pretty good and effective signs.

Isn't MDTA funded by tolls?

[mrsman]

I am long time follower of AA roads. This is my first post! Here is the reply I got from MdTA several months back regarding I-95 N signs. I guess they will not change signs despite completion of interchange.

We appreciate your interest in our facilities. Guide sign destinations are an important part of our freeway navigational system, which provides unfamiliar motorists with destinations and landmarks as directional guidance.  As a result, guide sign destinations are used at numerous locations along an Interstate Highway, including along approach roadways and at key decision points along the length of the roadway.

Within Maryland, I-95 northbound is signed using the destination "NEW YORK" for guide signs along the I-95 Mainline and approach roadways between Caton Avenue (Exit 50) and the Delaware State Line.  This provides a clear and consistent message for all motorists regarding the northbound route destination.  When northbound motorists reach Delaware they are provided with guidance to take I-95 North to reach "PHILADELPHIA" and I-295/The NJ Turnpike to reach "NY-NJ".

Using "NEW YORK" as the guide sign destination clearly captures all north bound motorists regardless of their ultimate destination without presenting information which could confuse motorists destined for an interim destination.  It also maintains consistency with signing along all approach roadways and in adjacent jurisdictions.

Federal regulations limit the number of destinations which can be shown on guide signs to two per sign, which allows the display of one destination in each direction (i.e. New York and Washington, DC).  Adding additional destinations causes confusion for motorists at a time when they are processing significant amounts of information as part of the driving task.

We appreciate your concern of the signing message; however, we are unable to accommodate your request at this time.

Welcome to the group, and thanks for your input.


I read the MdTA statement as basically saying that they may have had good reason to sign New York in the past, namely that the main road to the north is the NJTP, not 95 through Philly, and that you can't get to the north from Philly without some form of detour off the expressway system.

And now that I-95 is completed in such fashion that you can get to NYC via Philly, MdTA is unwilling to spend any money on updating their signage.

As a roadgeek, I would prefer Philadelphia.  As a MD taxpayer, I wouldn't want them spending the money to change what are otherwise pretty good and effective signs.

Isn't MDTA funded by tolls?

While most of the road north of Baltimore was once a toll road and funded by tolls, there are many signs within the non-toll part that still say i-95 New York.  Sign replacement would still come from a budget that is taxpayer-funded.

Nexus 5X

[ixnay]

While most of the road [I-95] north of Baltimore [to the DE line] was once a toll road and funded by tolls, there are many signs within the non-toll part that still say i-95 New York.  Sign replacement would still come from a budget that is taxpayer-funded.[/quote]

Yes, remember, the only tolled portion of that stretch nowadays is the Tydings Bridge, and only NB drivers have to cough up when using that span.

Is maintenance of the Tydings Bridge and maybe its toll plaza the only recipient of toll revenue on the JFK Highway (besides MdTA employees)?

ixnay

[famartin]

Follow on question: if most of the road is now tax supported, why doesn't SHA take it over instead?

[Flyer78]

Is maintenance of the Tydings Bridge and maybe its toll plaza the only recipient of toll revenue on the JFK Highway (besides MdTA employees)?

ixnay

That is just the toll-point for the JFK Highway. They still maintain about 50 miles of 95. Also, the tunnels. And more. See: https://mdta.maryland.gov/Toll_Facilities/facilities.html

[jaip]

I am long time follower of AA roads. This is my first post! Here is the reply I got from MdTA several months back regarding I-95 N signs. I guess they will not change signs despite completion of interchange.

We appreciate your interest in our facilities. Guide sign destinations are an important part of our freeway navigational system, which provides unfamiliar motorists with destinations and landmarks as directional guidance.  As a result, guide sign destinations are used at numerous locations along an Interstate Highway, including along approach roadways and at key decision points along the length of the roadway.

Within Maryland, I-95 northbound is signed using the destination "NEW YORK" for guide signs along the I-95 Mainline and approach roadways between Caton Avenue (Exit 50) and the Delaware State Line.  This provides a clear and consistent message for all motorists regarding the northbound route destination.  When northbound motorists reach Delaware they are provided with guidance to take I-95 North to reach "PHILADELPHIA" and I-295/The NJ Turnpike to reach "NY-NJ".

Using "NEW YORK" as the guide sign destination clearly captures all north bound motorists regardless of their ultimate destination without presenting information which could confuse motorists destined for an interim destination.  It also maintains consistency with signing along all approach roadways and in adjacent jurisdictions.

Federal regulations limit the number of destinations which can be shown on guide signs to two per sign, which allows the display of one destination in each direction (i.e. New York and Washington, DC).  Adding additional destinations causes confusion for motorists at a time when they are processing significant amounts of information as part of the driving task.

We appreciate your concern of the signing message; however, we are unable to accommodate your request at this time.

Welcome to the group, and thanks for your input.


I read the MdTA statement as basically saying that they may have had good reason to sign New York in the past, namely that the main road to the north is the NJTP, not 95 through Philly, and that you can't get to the north from Philly without some form of detour off the expressway system.

And now that I-95 is completed in such fashion that you can get to NYC via Philly, MdTA is unwilling to spend any money on updating their signage.

As a roadgeek, I would prefer Philadelphia.  As a MD taxpayer, I wouldn't want them spending the money to change what are otherwise pretty good and effective signs.

Thank you. It is not good use of tax payers money if indeed it will be funded by taxpayers. However it sounds like “conspiracy “ when they refuse to include Wilmington and Philadelphia on mile signs.

[PHLBOS]

I am long time follower of AA roads. This is my first post! Here is the reply I got from MdTA several months back regarding I-95 N signs. I guess they will not change signs despite completion of interchange.

We appreciate your interest in our facilities. Guide sign destinations are an important part of our freeway navigational system, which provides unfamiliar motorists with destinations and landmarks as directional guidance.  As a result, guide sign destinations are used at numerous locations along an Interstate Highway, including along approach roadways and at key decision points along the length of the roadway.

Within Maryland, I-95 northbound is signed using the destination "NEW YORK" for guide signs along the I-95 Mainline and approach roadways between Caton Avenue (Exit 50) and the Delaware State Line.  This provides a clear and consistent message for all motorists regarding the northbound route destination.  When northbound motorists reach Delaware they are provided with guidance to take I-95 North to reach "PHILADELPHIA" and I-295/The NJ Turnpike to reach "NY-NJ".

Using "NEW YORK" as the guide sign destination clearly captures all north bound motorists regardless of their ultimate destination without presenting information which could confuse motorists destined for an interim destination.  It also maintains consistency with signing along all approach roadways and in adjacent jurisdictions.

Federal regulations limit the number of destinations which can be shown on guide signs to two per sign, which allows the display of one destination in each direction (i.e. New York and Washington, DC).  Adding additional destinations causes confusion for motorists at a time when they are processing significant amounts of information as part of the driving task.

We appreciate your concern of the signing message; however, we are unable to accommodate your request at this time.

In your letter to MdTA; were you asking about the listing of Philadelphia, Wilmington or both?  Had the suggestion in your letter been for just Wilmington; the above-argument in MdTA's response falls flat because Wilmington, though not as large as Philly or NYC, is the next major/medium-sized city (& Delaware's largest city) along the I-95 corridor north of Baltimore.

[jeffandnicole]

I am long time follower of AA roads. This is my first post! Here is the reply I got from MdTA several months back regarding I-95 N signs. I guess they will not change signs despite completion of interchange.

We appreciate your interest in our facilities. Guide sign destinations are an important part of our freeway navigational system, which provides unfamiliar motorists with destinations and landmarks as directional guidance.  As a result, guide sign destinations are used at numerous locations along an Interstate Highway, including along approach roadways and at key decision points along the length of the roadway.

Within Maryland, I-95 northbound is signed using the destination "NEW YORK" for guide signs along the I-95 Mainline and approach roadways between Caton Avenue (Exit 50) and the Delaware State Line.  This provides a clear and consistent message for all motorists regarding the northbound route destination.  When northbound motorists reach Delaware they are provided with guidance to take I-95 North to reach "PHILADELPHIA" and I-295/The NJ Turnpike to reach "NY-NJ".

Using "NEW YORK" as the guide sign destination clearly captures all north bound motorists regardless of their ultimate destination without presenting information which could confuse motorists destined for an interim destination.  It also maintains consistency with signing along all approach roadways and in adjacent jurisdictions.

Federal regulations limit the number of destinations which can be shown on guide signs to two per sign, which allows the display of one destination in each direction (i.e. New York and Washington, DC).  Adding additional destinations causes confusion for motorists at a time when they are processing significant amounts of information as part of the driving task.

We appreciate your concern of the signing message; however, we are unable to accommodate your request at this time.

In your letter to MdTA; were you asking about the listing of Philadelphia, Wilmington or both?  Had the suggestion in your letter been for just Wilmington; the above-argument in MdTA's response falls flat because Wilmington, though not as large as Philly or NYC, is the next city (& Delaware's largest city) along the I-95 corridor north of Baltimore.

Nope.  Aberdeen, MD is the next city in Maryland north of Baltimore, which directly intersects with I-95.

Even in Delaware, Wilmington isn't the first city.  Newark, DE comes first.

[PHLBOS]

I am long time follower of AA roads. This is my first post! Here is the reply I got from MdTA several months back regarding I-95 N signs. I guess they will not change signs despite completion of interchange.

We appreciate your interest in our facilities. Guide sign destinations are an important part of our freeway navigational system, which provides unfamiliar motorists with destinations and landmarks as directional guidance.  As a result, guide sign destinations are used at numerous locations along an Interstate Highway, including along approach roadways and at key decision points along the length of the roadway.

Within Maryland, I-95 northbound is signed using the destination "NEW YORK" for guide signs along the I-95 Mainline and approach roadways between Caton Avenue (Exit 50) and the Delaware State Line.  This provides a clear and consistent message for all motorists regarding the northbound route destination.  When northbound motorists reach Delaware they are provided with guidance to take I-95 North to reach "PHILADELPHIA" and I-295/The NJ Turnpike to reach "NY-NJ".

Using "NEW YORK" as the guide sign destination clearly captures all north bound motorists regardless of their ultimate destination without presenting information which could confuse motorists destined for an interim destination.  It also maintains consistency with signing along all approach roadways and in adjacent jurisdictions.

Federal regulations limit the number of destinations which can be shown on guide signs to two per sign, which allows the display of one destination in each direction (i.e. New York and Washington, DC).  Adding additional destinations causes confusion for motorists at a time when they are processing significant amounts of information as part of the driving task.

We appreciate your concern of the signing message; however, we are unable to accommodate your request at this time.

In your letter to MdTA; were you asking about the listing of Philadelphia, Wilmington or both?  Had the suggestion in your letter been for just Wilmington; the above-argument in MdTA's response falls flat because Wilmington, though not as large as Philly or NYC, is the next major/medium-sized city (& Delaware's largest city) along the I-95 corridor north of Baltimore.

Nope.  Aberdeen, MD is the next city in Maryland north of Baltimore, which directly intersects with I-95.

Okay, north of Baltimore; but not for the entire stretch from there to the DE State Line; which I believe is the contention here.  And while Aberdeen is indeed a city; my guess is that it's smaller than Wilmington.  That said, if old-school dual-control city signs for one direction were still being applied in this area (such is done in other northeastern states); I see no issue with an Aberdeen/Wilmington combo for northbound up to Aberdeen.

Even in Delaware, Wilmington isn't the first city.  Newark, DE comes first.

However, I do believe that Wilmington is still larger than Newark.  Additionally, if one uses Newark; it would need to be listed as Newark, DE to avoid such being confused w/Newark, NJ given that the latter is more known than the former and (unlike the earlier-mentioned Wilmington, DE vs. Wilmington, NC) due to its being located in an adjacent state.

That said, I have since modified my earlier post to include the term major/medium-sized city.

[famartin]

I've mentioned this already, but SHA uses a bunch of not large cities on I-70: Frederick, Hagerstown, Hancock. Not until Hancock does Breezewood get used.

[jeffandnicole]

Control Cities are just there to assist in guiding people along.  But some thought has to be used into what provides the best guidance.  If we said Newark, does it really matter if it's NJ or DE's, because both are reachable along I-95 North.  Are we looking out for local residents, because we can use Aberdeen, or even Harve de Grace.  When I do a Google search for a definition of a mid-sized city, the results seem to indicate it needs to have at least 100,000 residents, in which case Wilmington, DE actually does not qualify.  However, Wilmington, NC *does* qualify.  Sure, Wilmington, NC isn't reachable on 95 North in Maryland, but that's why you have multiple sets of information on these signs to help the motorists who don't understand basic stuff like "North" and "South".  Also, what is the likelihood that a motorist in Maryland is looking for Wilmington, Delaware - does that pull-thru sign assist the motorist in feeling comfortable about their direction of travel?

So when it comes down to it, for the common motorist, Philly and NYC would be the best control cities in guiding people along 95 North.  And for whatever reason, the powers to be in Maryland decided on New York as being that best control city.  And I don't blame Maryland for not instantly switching over to Philly as a control city, because honestly, they had no input on the whole I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project.  And just for comparison's sake, the NJTA has been heavily involved and a $2.3 Billion project to compliment the interchange, and they *still* haven't signed their own road with the I-95 shields!

[Beltway]

I don't blame Maryland for not instantly switching over to Philly as a control city, because honestly, they had no input on the whole I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project.  And just for comparison's sake, the NJTA has been heavily involved and a $2.3 Billion project to compliment the interchange, and they *still* haven't signed their own road with the I-95 shields!

The I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project has remaining phases still to be constructed, and one is vital to providing a modern I-95 route, namely the parallel Delaware River bridge and the approach widening to 6 thru lanes.  With only 4 lanes across the river it can be questioned whether an adequate highway yet exists to handle both local and long distance I-95 traffic.

[bzakharin]

I don't really see why the interchange project should change any control cities south of Philadelphia. From Maryland's point of view I-95 splits into two roadways, one to Wilmington / Philadelphia, one to New York. This hasn't changed. I don't see how a new route between Philadelphia and New York which, for all intents and purposes, is irrelevant to Maryland, changes anything. Do I wish they added it? Yes. Do I think there is more of a reason to add it now? No. It makes a lot more sense to add Philadelphia southbound, along the Turnpike/I-95 in New Jersey, and maybe even from New York.

[famartin]

I don't really see why the interchange project should change any control cities south of Philadelphia. From Maryland's point of view I-95 splits into two roadways, one to Wilmington / Philadelphia, one to New York. This hasn't changed. I don't see how a new route between Philadelphia and New York which, for all intents and purposes, is irrelevant to Maryland, changes anything. Do I wish they added it? Yes. Do I think there is more of a reason to add it now? No. It makes a lot more sense to add Philadelphia southbound, along the Turnpike/I-95 in New Jersey, and maybe even from New York.

I mostly agree with your comments here.  You are right, nothing changed from Maryland's standpoint - its been wrong for years, and the interchange is irrelevant to that.  It is interesting, however, just from a state-to-state standpoint, how I-95 is signed control-city wise.  Certainly, most states will use a closer destination.  The usage of "New York" is a legacy from the old eastern turnpike complex, and MDTA has no interest in changing something they've done for more than 50 years.  In that respect, I have to give NJTA more credit, since they've actually gone out of their way in recent years to finally update their legacy practices.

There's also a disconnect with MD's practice.  In Delaware, I-95 north is generally signed as "Wilmington", not "New York", so you go from a more distant location signing a more distant city, to a closer location signing a closer city, just by crossing the state line heading towards that distant city.  And, Delaware is actually respectful to MD by signing "Baltimore"... they could easily get away with signing "Washington" and thumb their nose at Maryland.

Another point regarding control cities since we're so deep into them right now... there is also a current disconnect with I-95 control cities in PA and NJ.  Since the new interchange was completed, I-95 north has been signed as "New York" in PA... "Trenton" was removed.  Technically, since going north along I-95 in Philly still gets you to Trenton, they could both be there.  I realize the intention, but again, its a state-line disconnect.

[jeffandnicole]

I don't blame Maryland for not instantly switching over to Philly as a control city, because honestly, they had no input on the whole I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project.  And just for comparison's sake, the NJTA has been heavily involved and a $2.3 Billion project to compliment the interchange, and they *still* haven't signed their own road with the I-95 shields!

The I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project has remaining phases still to be constructed, and one is vital to providing a modern I-95 route, namely the parallel Delaware River bridge and the approach widening to 6 thru lanes.  With only 4 lanes across the river it can be questioned whether an adequate highway yet exists to handle both local and long distance I-95 traffic.

It's adequate in normal day to day travel...and experiences less congestion than many 6 and 8 lane highways, especially during rush hour. 

[bzakharin]

Another point regarding control cities since we're so deep into them right now... there is also a current disconnect with I-95 control cities in PA and NJ.  Since the new interchange was completed, I-95 north has been signed as "New York" in PA... "Trenton" was removed.  Technically, since going north along I-95 in Philly still gets you to Trenton, they could both be there.  I realize the intention, but again, its a state-line disconnect.

While I agree that Trenton could have been retained, where is the state line disconnect? When you cross the Turnpike bridge into NJ, the first sign that provides control cities (at the 1/4 mile advance sign for the US 130 exit) says New York City / Camden. The northbound Turnpike itself is consistently signed "New York".

[PHLBOS]

...nothing changed from Maryland's standpoint - its been wrong for years, and the interchange is irrelevant to that.  It is interesting, however, just from a state-to-state standpoint, how I-95 is signed control-city wise.  Certainly, most states will use a closer destination.  The usage of "New York" is a legacy from the old eastern turnpike complex, and MDTA has no interest in changing something they've done for more than 50 years.  In that respect, I have to give NJTA more credit, since they've actually gone out of their way in recent years to finally update their legacy practices.

There's also a disconnect with MD's practice.  In Delaware, I-95 north is generally signed as "Wilmington", not "New York", so you go from a more distant location signing a more distant city, to a closer location signing a closer city, just by crossing the state line heading towards that distant city.  And, Delaware is actually respectful to MD by signing "Baltimore"... they could easily get away with signing "Washington" and thumb their nose at Maryland.

The above sums up rather nicely the MD issue with their I-95 northbound ramp/pull-through signs.

Another point regarding control cities since we're so deep into them right now... there is also a current disconnect with I-95 control cities in PA and NJ.  Since the new interchange was completed, I-95 north has been signed as "New York" in PA... "Trenton" was removed.  Technically, since going north along I-95 in Philly still gets you to Trenton, they could both be there.  I realize the intention, but again, its a state-line disconnect.

I commented on such many posts/pages ago when those signs were first changed.  IMHO, the signs south of the PA 413 interchange (Exit 39) did not need to be changed.  Since the Delaware Expressway, regardless of whether one portion is I-95 and the other portion is I-295, is still indeed the most direct route to Trenton (south of the I-295/US 1 cloverleaf); the signs should still reflect such.

A better solution, only such was done at the PA 413 interchange in Bristol, would've been to list both Trenton and New York on the same sign panels; a practice (dual-control city listings for the same direction) that's been done in many densely populated regions for decades.

[famartin]

Another point regarding control cities since we're so deep into them right now... there is also a current disconnect with I-95 control cities in PA and NJ.  Since the new interchange was completed, I-95 north has been signed as "New York" in PA... "Trenton" was removed.  Technically, since going north along I-95 in Philly still gets you to Trenton, they could both be there.  I realize the intention, but again, its a state-line disconnect.

I commented on such many posts/pages ago when those signs were first changed.  IMHO, the signs south of the PA 413 interchange (Exit 39) did not need to be changed.  Since the Delaware Expressway, regardless of whether one portion is I-95 and the other portion is I-295, is still indeed the most direct route to Trenton (south of the I-295/US 1 cloverleaf); the signs should still reflect such.

A better solution, only such was done at the PA 413 interchange in Bristol, would've been to list both Trenton and New York on the same sign panels; a practice (dual-control city listings for the same direction) that's been done in many densely populated regions for decades.

I agree that they didn't need to be changed, and that signing both Trenton and New York is preferable to just one, but I think their point was to publicize the completion of the interchange, and make sure northbound traffic kept going on I-95 and didn't follow I-295 to Trenton.  Doing likewise on southbound NJTP in NJ north of Exit 6 would also help direct traffic towards the interchange, but of course, it hasn't happened yet (and may never, but I can dream).

[PHLBOS]

I agree that they didn't need to be changed, and that signing both Trenton and New York is preferable to just one, but I think their point was to publicize the completion of the interchange, and make sure northbound traffic kept going on I-95 and didn't follow I-295 to Trenton.  Doing likewise on southbound NJTP in NJ north of Exit 6 would also help direct traffic towards the interchange, but of course, it hasn't happened yet (and may never, but I can dream).

IMHO, one can only hope that the earlier-posted NJTA bulletin that mentioned sign upgrades along the Turnpike will include placing the remaining missing I-95 shields from Exit 8A southward to the Connector interchange w/US 130.