I-95 gap in NJ

[PurdueBill]

In my days of working with the turnpike at Interchange 1, more than one person asked what state they were in.  The New Jersey in "New Jersey Turnpike" meant nothing to them.

What did you tell them?  If giving them a fun, incorrect answer weren't probably a Bad Idea for job security, it probably would have been fun to mess with some people like that.

[1995hoo]

Everyone I've ever mentioned the NJTP to in either Virginia or Massachusetts has known exactly what it is immediately. It's easily one of the most famous roads in the country, at least on the east coast. Way more well-known than many interstates. A well-established name like the NJTP is far more recognizable than any number.

....

I've lived in Virginia since 1974 and I agree with this comment, but I've also always been quite surprised when I've given directions at how many people will strenuously insist "the New Jersey Turnpike IS I-95!!!" (and they weren't referring just to the portion north of Exit 10, or the portion north of Exit 6). The issue would arise when I would tell them that in Delaware they should be sure to follow the signs to I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike and not the signs to I-95. "What do you mean, not to I-95? The New Jersey Turnpike IS I-95!!!" It's been awhile since I had this argument since I give directions a lot less than I used to with the rise of sat-navs, but I was always surprised by the way someone would ask me for directions because they said I gave better directions than anyone they knew and then they'd turn around and be adamant that I was wrong on the route number. Really? Well, if you're so friggin' sure about it, why are you bothering to ask me for directions?!

[cpzilliacus]

In my days of working with the turnpike at Interchange 1, more than one person asked what state they were in.  The New Jersey in "New Jersey Turnpike" meant nothing to them.

Had a similar experience when I was working along the  Eisenhower Avenue Connector in the City of Alexandria, Virginia.

A car pulls up and one of the occupants inside asks us "Which way to Johns Hopkins Hospital." 

Turns out the folks in the car had driven south from New York or New Jersey (don't know if they took the N.J. Turnpike), and they thought they were in Baltimore.

Fortunately I knew how to get from Alexandria to the Johns Hopkins "main" Medical Campus (JHU has two medical campuses and the non-medical "main" campus in Baltimore), so I was able to send them on their way.  Don't know if they ever made it to Hopkins or not.

[cpzilliacus]

I've lived in Virginia since 1974 and I agree with this comment, but I've also always been quite surprised when I've given directions at how many people will strenuously insist "the New Jersey Turnpike IS I-95!!!" (and they weren't referring just to the portion north of Exit 10, or the portion north of Exit 6). The issue would arise when I would tell them that in Delaware they should be sure to follow the signs to I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike and not the signs to I-95. "What do you mean, not to I-95? The New Jersey Turnpike IS I-95!!!" It's been awhile since I had this argument since I give directions a lot less than I used to with the rise of sat-navs, but I was always surprised by the way someone would ask me for directions because they said I gave better directions than anyone they knew and then they'd turn around and be adamant that I was wrong on the route number. Really? Well, if you're so friggin' sure about it, why are you bothering to ask me for directions?!

Some years ago (mid 1990's?), there was a massive fire along the Delaware Expressway near Philadelphia that shut the road down - completely.

The traffic reporters in the D.C. media market were reporting this, because it was I-95, and advising listeners to take "alternate routes" to get to New York City.

Now they do not normally report anything along I-95 beyond Maryland's JFK Highway, but this was an exception.

I called one of the reporters and tried (and mostly failed) to explain the realities of I-95, though their reports stopped discussing alternate routes to get to New York.

[Alps]

In my days of working with the turnpike at Interchange 1, more than one person asked what state they were in.  The New Jersey in "New Jersey Turnpike" meant nothing to them.

That is just too hilarious! And in no way contradicts my experience. When I worked at PennDOT, I was often stunned into slack-jawed wonder by some of the questions people would ask me every now and again, sometimes by friends of mine.

I know a former toll taker as well. Travelers may be at mile 135 on the New Jersey Parkway - which is really 13.5 on the Turnpike - and not sure which direction they're headed. Or they just passed Newark, but in reality they just passed a SIGN for Newark and are still 80 miles away.

[akotchi]

Well, it IS obvious that I-95 leaves the road, because it's going to be blatantly signed up at Exit 6, and NB travelers see it continuing to Philly.

Might the signs approaching Exit 6 southbound actually include Philadelphia as a control city?

They will, but the line is currently covered on the signs in place now.

[YankeesFan]

i think they should make the NJTP south of PA turnpike extension 295 and make the current 295 a southern extension of NJ 29

29 is a state route, so that would be decommissioning the interstate designation of 295 for 60 miles, which would serve no benefit whatsoever.

Remember - I-295 was supposed to be a large loop around Wilmington, Philadelphia & Trenton, meeting back up with 95 north of Trenton.  Of course, 95 was never completed in NJ.  That, combined with how 295 goes thru NJ away from PA, makes it look and feel like a separate route rather than a loop around a city (or in this case, cities), which is how a 3di is supposed to operate. 

One can argue that since it won't meet up with the parent 95, 295 should become 395 or another odd digit 3di since tehnically it'll be a spur rather than a loop (although it'll continue as another 3di).  One way around that is to cosign 195 between I-295 (Exit 60) and the NJ Turnpike (Exit 6) as 295 also, so it would meet back up with 95!

If they wanted to give the NJ Turnpike below Interchange 6 an interstate designation, they could simply give it 695 or 895, neither of which are used in NJ.

but it would be a true bypass if they moved 295 to the NJTP south of 6, this way it now meets it's parent. I would give I-695 or 895 to the current 95/295 in Mercer County.

[jeffandnicole]

PurdueBill:  I would say "Here's a hint...you're on the NEW JERSEY Turnpike".  That meant nothing to them, which was the point of my post!  Finally I would just say New Jersey, and they would either thank me, or say "You mean this isn't (fill in the blank with Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania)"???

1995hoo:  I had some of them people too.  They would ask me for directions; I'd give them the directions, and then they would respond that their mapquest directions told them something else.  I said, fine, follow those directions instead.  Not that they're much better now, but around years 2000 - 2003 they had some interesting ways to get places...many of them nearly impossible to try, unless you didn't mind hitting some trees along the way!

Steve: I only worked the weekends on the Turnpike, and mostly the overnight shift.  Plenty of fun 'discussions' with the motorists.  Basically, it taught me how scary it is to be driving alongside these people at highway speeds. Many of them just had no clue at all.  Just by knowing what I learned, I would say a good percentage of fuel is wasted from people driving around aimlessly.

YankeesFan: as long as x95 is an even number, it will always represent a loop around a city.  Thus, whether it's 295 or 695, the goal is accomplished of designating the NJTP a bypass.  And there would be no reason to change exisiting 295 to 695, which would involve changing directions related to about 40 different interchanges in the 67 mile span of 295 alone!  The hassle would be tremendously not worth it!

[YankeesFan]

YankeesFan: as long as x95 is an even number, it will always represent a loop around a city.  Thus, whether it's 295 or 695, the goal is accomplished of designating the NJTP a bypass.  And there would be no reason to change exisiting 295 to 695, which would involve changing directions related to about 40 different interchanges in the 67 mile span of 295 alone!  The hassle would be tremendously not worth it!

i think you need to go back and read my posts...this isn't what i said.

[NE2]

PurdueBill:  I would say "Here's a hint...you're on the NEW JERSEY Turnpike".

"Well, I was just in Philadelphia the other day, and I saw a sign for the DELAWARE Expressway."

[Beltway]

PurdueBill:  I would say "Here's a hint...you're on the NEW JERSEY Turnpike".

"Well, I was just in Philadelphia the other day, and I saw a sign for the DELAWARE Expressway."

As we know, there is a very prominent river called the Delaware River, bordering the 3 states, and I-95 parallels the river.  There is no New Jersey River...

[NE2]

"The day before that, I was in Washington, where I ate at a hot dog cart on NEW JERSEY Avenue. And last year I was in Palo Alto and drove OREGON Expressway."

[Alps]

"The day before that, I was in Washington, where I ate at a hot dog cart on NEW JERSEY Avenue. And last year I was in Palo Alto and drove OREGON Expressway."

I live on Parsippany Road. I live in Parsippany. I used to live on Livingston Avenue in Livingston. I assume that this is always the case.

[Compulov]

Princeton wasn't on the route, but anti-progress types--and every college campus has them, both on staff and in the student body--most definitely added their voices of opposition, both publicly and behind the scenes.

As someone who has been working at Princeton for over seven years now, I can say that the policymakers (as well as those who tend to be most vocal on issues like this) also tend to be the ones who live within walking/biking/quick driving distance from campus. Thus, they want what is best for them.... screw the lowly peons like us who can't afford to live that close on what they pay us. So, we clog up the roads into and out of campus and along US 1, Princeton Pike, and US 206, trying to get home to our affordable housing elsewhere in Mercer, Middlesex, Burlington, and Bucks counties (and then some). I was just a kid (and not living in that area) when all this stuff was decided, but you'd better believe I'd have my ass out at community meetings to make sure my voice was heard, were this still on the table today. NIMBYs think you can stop progress, or that if you don't build it, suddenly they won't come. The sprawl is already there, and now we lack the tools to help deal with it.
</rant>

Edit (to keep from multi-posting):

I'm also not so sure how much demand an interchange here would generate.

As someone who has taken the Burlington-Bristol Bridge to 130 to CR 541 to 295 a *lot*, I would *love* to have a freeway link across the river to 295. I don't shunpike, either... 295 just has more local exits, so it suits my needs more than the Turnpike does. If I'm in it for the long haul, I'll usually stick with either 95 through Philly or the Turnpike all the way to its southern terminus (mostly because of that 42 mess). This works going the other way, too... just yesterday I needed to route my parents from Cherry Hill (70, near 295) to Newtown off 95. I ended up having them take 73 -> 90 to get 95 via the Betsy Ross (didn't want them to deal with the T-P Bridge and access to 95). A 295 -> Turnpike -> 95 option would have made that a much quicker trip, as they could have avoided a lot of traffic on 73. I can't see how building this interchange would do anything but improve flow on all the local roads that everyone in the area has to already use to get between the various freeways.

[qguy]

As someone who has taken the Burlington-Bristol Bridge to 130 to CR 541 to 295 a *lot*, I would *love* to have a freeway link across the river to 295.

I agree. Of course, when the I-95/PATP interchange is built, it will provide a connection from I-95 across the river to NJ, but it won't connect with I-295. I've often wondered if that situation will eventually put pressure on the NJTA and NJDOT to provide an interchange between the NJTP PA spur and I-295.

[jeffandnicole]

I agree. Of course, when the I-95/PATP interchange is built, it will provide a connection from I-95 across the river to NJ, but it won't connect with I-295. I've often wondered if that situation will eventually put pressure on the NJTA and NJDOT to provide an interchange between the NJTP PA spur and I-295.

I can't see why the pressure would be there in the future but not now. One can take the Extension to 130 North to 295, or can take the extension to the NJ Turnpike Mainline North or South to get where they're going without too much inconvenience.  There are numerous options for someone to get from 95 in PA to 295 in NJ already.

Of the road and highway issues people have in NJ, this one never appears...anywhere!

[1995hoo]

As someone who has taken the Burlington-Bristol Bridge to 130 to CR 541 to 295 a *lot*, I would *love* to have a freeway link across the river to 295.

I agree. Of course, when the I-95/PATP interchange is built, it will provide a connection from I-95 across the river to NJ, but it won't connect with I-295. I've often wondered if that situation will eventually put pressure on the NJTA and NJDOT to provide an interchange between the NJTP PA spur and I-295.

Potential problem there is proximity to the existing Exit 6 on the mainline Turnpike. The I-295 overpass is barely a mile to the west. I suppose, in light of that big messy interchange near Newark Airport, that it's not impossible to build another interchange there, but no doubt it would complicate matters (bear in mind that when the widening is done, Exit 6 will include more ramps than it has now due to the quad-carriageway). Perhaps the best way to do something like that might be to move the Pennsylvania Extension's toll plaza to a location between I-295 and the mainline and then, if necessary, use ramp tolls for traffic heading from I-295 towards Pennsylvania (similar to the existing setup at Exit 6A for US-130). The reason I suggest that sort of thing is that potentially if the toll plaza were located between the mainline and the new interchange it might reduce the dangerous high-speed weaving you encounter when interchanges are closely-spaced, although on the other hand you might then get kamikaze maneuvers by people trying to bomb all the way across either just before or just after the toll plaza to reach the "correct" lane or to access E-ZPass Only lanes.


Edited to add: The point "jeffandnicole" makes (make?) is right-on as well. It's only two miles from Exit 6 to Exit 7 and then it's a very short hop across to a couple of ways onto I-295 (it's easier to get to southbound I-295 there, but northbound isn't much farther). I have confess that I do not see what advantage there would be to going across to New Jersey and then north on I-295 instead of simply using I-95 to US-1 in Pennsylvania and crossing that way.

[jeffandnicole]

As someone who has taken the Burlington-Bristol Bridge to 130 to CR 541 to 295 a *lot*, I would *love* to have a freeway link across the river to 295.

I agree. Of course, when the I-95/PATP interchange is built, it will provide a connection from I-95 across the river to NJ, but it won't connect with I-295. I've often wondered if that situation will eventually put pressure on the NJTA and NJDOT to provide an interchange between the NJTP PA spur and I-295.

Potential problem there is proximity to the existing Exit 6 on the mainline Turnpike. The I-295 overpass is barely a mile to the west. I suppose, in light of that big messy interchange near Newark Airport, that it's not impossible to build another interchange there, but no doubt it would complicate matters (bear in mind that when the widening is done, Exit 6 will include more ramps than it has now due to the quad-carriageway). Perhaps the best way to do something like that might be to move the Pennsylvania Extension's toll plaza to a location between I-295 and the mainline and then, if necessary, use ramp tolls for traffic heading from I-295 towards Pennsylvania (similar to the existing setup at Exit 6A for US-130). The reason I suggest that sort of thing is that potentially if the toll plaza were located between the mainline and the new interchange it might reduce the dangerous high-speed weaving you encounter when interchanges are closely-spaced, although on the other hand you might then get kamikaze maneuvers by people trying to bomb all the way across either just before or just after the toll plaza to reach the "correct" lane or to access E-ZPass Only lanes.


Edited to add: The point "jeffandnicole" makes (make?) is right-on as well. It's only two miles from Exit 6 to Exit 7 and then it's a very short hop across to a couple of ways onto I-295 (it's easier to get to southbound I-295 there, but northbound isn't much farther). I have confess that I do not see what advantage there would be to going across to New Jersey and then north on I-295 instead of simply using I-95 to US-1 in Pennsylvania and crossing that way.

If putting an interchange a mile away from the turnpike mainline is a problem, a physical toll plaza (not a ORT plaza) even closer to the mainline would cause many problems!

[cpzilliacus]

I think an interchange between the Pennsylvania Extension of the N.J. Turnpike and I-295 would be tough, tough, tough, though the land appears to possibly be available for a double-trumpet interchange. 

It is awfully close to Exit 6 in any case.  And is there demand for such an interchange?

[1995hoo]

My thought on toll plaza versus closely-spaced interchanges was essentially this:

(a) Exit 6 is set up as a fairly high-speed change of direction. The ramp (in the future, "ramps") from the northbound Turnpike fly over the ramp from the southbound side and then join from the right.

(b) Given where the nearby freeway-to-freeway interchanges are, and what destinations the roads serve, it seems like there ought to be more of a demand–relatively speaking–to go from the southbound Turnpike to southbound I-295 than there would be from the northbound Turnpike to either direction of I-295. (Of course I recognize that the southbound-to-southbound maneuver is EASILY served by the existing Exit 7!)

(c) That means that you either have to build an auxiliary ramp off to one side for southbound traffic to bypass the merging northbound traffic, or else have the traffic coming from the southbound ramp to the Pennsylvania Extension cut across the traffic coming from the northbound ramp to the Extension while all said vehicles are moving at full speed. The latter seems undesirable.

(d) Alternatively, you just throw a toll plaza across the road and make everyone slow down big-time. The lane-changing and cutting across seems like it would be less hazardous at slower speeds like that, although I suppose there's a good counterpoint that having drivers distracted by trying to get over for their exit while approaching a toll plaza is undesirable too. Either way, having a toll plaza in close proximity to ramp splits and the like is hardly unusual on the Turnpike, although it's probably fair to assume that most of the toll plazas were built in a different era and likely do not comply with modern standards for such things. The one that most readily comes to my mind is Exit 10 for I-287 and NJ-440 to the Outerbridge Crossing as I've used that interchange many times on trips to Brooklyn. You have to sort yourself out right quick after passing through the plaza. I suppose traffic is already moving a lot slower when encountering that plaza than would be the case at Exit 6, of course.

I suppose we're getting into "Fictional Highways" territory here.

[Compulov]

I suppose we're getting into "Fictional Highways" territory here.

Yeah, sorry to derail things. I just think it'd be nice that if there's already one half of the freeway link being built (or in the future, built), that the other half ought to be there. I suppose taking 130N to CR 656 to 295 would probably be better than the way I usually go, but still... I'll keep quiet (or move the discussion over to Fictional Highways).

[1995hoo]

I suppose we're getting into "Fictional Highways" territory here.

Yeah, sorry to derail things. I just think it'd be nice that if there's already one half of the freeway link being built (or in the future, built), that the other half ought to be there. I suppose taking 130N to CR 656 to 295 would probably be better than the way I usually go, but still... I'll keep quiet (or move the discussion over to Fictional Highways).

In fairness to you, I think the whole I-95 in New Jersey topic can't really be discussed without dealing with fictional highways to some extent (at least not at the present time) given the unusual situation, and it certainly does seem that if the interchange in Pennsylvania is intended as part of the "final solution" to this problem, then it's probably appropriate to address related gaps at the same time.

[PHLBOS]

I agree. Of course, when the I-95/PATP interchange is built, it will provide a connection from I-95 across the river to NJ, but it won't connect with I-295. I've often wondered if that situation will eventually put pressure on the NJTA and NJDOT to provide an interchange between the NJTP PA spur and I-295.

I can't see why the pressure would be there in the future but not now. One can take the Extension to 130 North to 295, or can take the extension to the NJ Turnpike Mainline North or South to get where they're going without too much inconvenience.  There are numerous options for someone to get from 95 in PA to 295 in NJ already.

Of the road and highway issues people have in NJ, this one never appears...anywhere!

Let's keep in mind that the current NJTP Extension interchange w/US 130 is NOT the original partial-Exit 6A interchange that dumped traffic onto a side-road (Railroad Ave.) there and only had partial access to/from the PA-side only.  The current dual-trumpet-interchange was built about a decade ago and allows traffic from the mainline Turnpike to connect w/US 130.  The main toll plaza was relocated east of its original location when the new interchange was built.

My guess regarding the rationale to upgrading the US 130 interchange vs. building a new interchange w/I-295 back then was a case of one can do only one but not the other.  295's proximity to the current Penn Toll Plaza to the west and the Turnpike's Exit 6 (being upgraded for dual-carriage ramps to the north as I'm typing this) to the east makes placing a dual-trumpet interchange a bit of a squeeze.

And since NJDOT already relocated that toll plaza once nearly a decade ago; I don't think there are any plans to relocate it once again between I-295 and the mainline Turnpike.

Anyway, somebody wanting to go to/from the Turnpike from/to I-295 still have several options: Exit 7A/5 (via I-195 to/from Exit 60), Exit 7/56 (via Rising Sun & Connector Roads) and Exit 6A - 52B (via County Route 656/Florence-Coulumbus Blvd.) being three that are within close proximity to the PA Extension.

[Alps]

There is very much a dose of "if we build a direct connection to 295, more traffic will use it" - the fact that the Exits 7-52 link is hardly overburdened notwithstanding.

[cpzilliacus]

There is very much a dose of "if we build a direct connection to 295, more traffic will use it" - the fact that the Exits 7-52 link is hardly overburdened notwithstanding.

There are few anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility arguments that get more under my skin than the one that cites "induced" demand.  Especially when the supposed "induced" demand is for a road that is tolled.

Having said that, in my opinion at least, the I-295 and N.J. Turnpike mainline (south of Interchange 6) works well, though that may be unintentional. The longer (through) trip lengths are on the Turnpike, and the shorter (local) trip lengths are on I-295.  Rather like some other local/express lanes in various places (though not really including the "dual-dual" portions of the N.J. Turnpike itself), since there is always (I think - correct me if I am wrong) access to the "car" and "truck" lanes at every interchange and at every service plaza.

Now if New Jersey legislators would just allow a higher speed limit (say, 75 MPH) on most of the Turnpike.