I-95 gap in NJ

[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.

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.

Not what I was getting at. I was referring to the idea that more current Turnpike users will shunpike from Interchanges 1-6 if the connection is improved.

[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.

Not what I was getting at. I was referring to the idea that more current Turnpike users will shunpike from Interchanges 1-6 if the connection is improved.

O.K.

Well, in a sense that could be a form of "induced" demand as well. <smile>

Though I suspect that most people are not going to bother with shunpiking (at least I don't), unless the Turnpike has some sort of incident - or there is recurring southbound congestion approaching Exit 1, which still happens sometimes with the new toll plaza, because there is not enough queue space for vehicles paying cash.

When I-95 is complete, there may be some shunpiking that way, though I think one or two trips through Philadelphia congestion might make people stay on the Pike after they experience a congested Delaware Expressway.

[NE2]

There are few anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility arguments that get more under my skin than the one that cites "induced" demand.

I'll keep that in mind.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

Then I apologize...although I still don't see the reason why the turnpike couldn't just get another x95 number besides 295! :-)

[jeffandnicole]

Actually, my 'dream' connction (yeah, that's not a lead-in to a fictional highway story) would be to create ramps to/from the turnpike North of Interchange 4 on the Turnpike, and between Exits 36 (NJ 73) & 40 (NJ 38) on I-295.  In this area, the distance between highways is non-existant (in fact, I'm pretty sure there's no private lane between the Turnpike & 295 for a short stretch).  This connection would be for both directions.  This would allow traffic to easily switch between both roadways.  Since 295 congests on a regular basis between Exits 36 (Rt. 73) and 26 (Rt. 42/I-76), this will allow traffic to bypass that congestion.  Or, traffic can come south on the Turnpike and come over to 295 to access the many interchanges one finds on 295.

Similiarly, traffic going North on 295 or the Turnpike could cross over to the other road for any of several reasons.

This would be much more useful than an interchange at 295 & the NJ/PA Tpk Extension!

[jeffandnicole]

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.

BTW, I think you mean Exit 7 - 56 link.  Exit 52 is the Columbus Exit off 295.

[qguy]

When I initiated discussion of an interchange between the NJTP PA spur and I-295, I suspected I'd kick up a lot of mentions of the proximity between any interchange and the mainline. But I wanted to see what everyone's thinking was, without pushing the discussion in a particular direction. I agree that it would be awfully hard, if not impossible, to design and construct a workable interchange at that location.

I like jefandnicole's idea, though. I think the case could be made that it would attract at least as many drivers to the NJTP, probably more, as shunpiking would siphon off.

[Alps]

I think the first priority ought to be connecting the Turnpike to NJ 42/Atlantic City Expressway. That will also give you the connectivity to 295 and 76 at that interchange. Given how bad 42 is, though, it's unlikely to do too much, but at least there are relatively easy connections right now between Tpk and 295, but not so for 42. As for 73/38 area, Fellowship Rd. with a lot of development is between the two. There are a few other points where the highways are right next to each other.

[qguy]

And there are still missing movements between I-295 and NJ 42. You can't travel from NB 295 to SB 42 or from NB 42 to SB 295. A project to fix this had been in design at NJDOT, but has since been deferred.

I agree that there are a lot of goofy things in and around the Philadelphia metro area, the fix for any one of which would be very helpful and perhaps a higher priority.

[Alps]

And there are still missing movements between I-295 and NJ 42. You can't travel from NB 295 to SB 42 or from NB 42 to SB 295. A project to fix this had been in design at NJDOT, but has since been deferred.

Actually, it is coming down the pipe. First they're doing reconstruction of the 42/295 interchange, but the Missing Moves are going in right after. They settled on a design that passes north of the landfill. Because 42/295 has already passed final design (and is in fact getting underway now!), Missing Moves aren't going to be added to it. I know it would be nice to construct simultaneously, but it's more important to just break ground and get working.

[qguy]

You induced me to check the 295 project website and sure enough! I hadn't noticed that they changed the PDF of the selected alternative. The last time I looked at it, it had the older planned configuration of the missing moves (the green-shaded connections). Sneaky devils.

[Edited to avoid double-posting.]

I also notice that PennDOT and the PTC aren't the only agencies who can really stretch out a project. I remember attending a public information meeting on the 295/42 project back in the late 90s and I see from the contracts PDF that construction is projected to wrap up in 2021. Not nearly as bad as the PATP/I-95 project, but still.

[NJRoadfan]

They updated the routing of the missing moves on the PDF, but not the thumbnail graphic!

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt295/shortlist-alternatives_mapD.shtm

What was the big deal over cutting through the landfill? Either way, there were be a weaving problem on 42 between these new ramps and 55. That section of roadway is already a choke point.

[Alps]

They updated the routing of the missing moves on the PDF, but not the thumbnail graphic!

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt295/shortlist-alternatives_mapD.shtm

What was the big deal over cutting through the landfill? Either way, there were be a weaving problem on 42 between these new ramps and 55. That section of roadway is already a choke point.

I don't want to give too much away of what I actually know, but here's what I can tell you - the DOT can't take the landfill until it's capped. I don't know WHY that is, but rather than wait, they just took other property instead.

[Beltway]

I don't want to give too much away of what I actually know, but here's what I can tell you - the DOT can't take the landfill until it's capped. I don't know WHY that is, but rather than wait, they just took other property instead.

Building a highway over a landfill is a non-starter, since garbage typically can't be compacted enough to provide a firm base for a highway.  Relocating hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of garbage to somewhere else would be quite difficult if not impossible, as well as very expensive.

[Beltway]

With respect to the lack of interchange between I-95 and I-295 on the PA Turnpike Extension in NJ --

The northerly movements already exist via the NJ I-195 connection to I-295, an Interstate grade connection.

The southerly movements seem low priority if needed at all, because of the sharp skew between the two highways, would mean very little traffic would use that.

[cpzilliacus]

I think the first priority ought to be connecting the Turnpike to NJ 42/Atlantic City Expressway.

I strongly agree.  That missing connection (in my opinion) qualifies as a breezewood.  In a sense, it's even worse than a breezewood, since there is no connection at all - rather like the (current) non-connection between I-95 and the E-W mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

That will also give you the connectivity to 295 and 76 at that interchange. Given how bad 42 is, though, it's unlikely to do too much, but at least there are relatively easy connections right now between Tpk and 295, but not so for 42. As for 73/38 area, Fellowship Rd. with a lot of development is between the two. There are a few other points where the highways are right next to each other.

It would seem to me that an elevated trumpet-trumpet interchange might work to connect the Turnpike and N.J. 42.  It would be expensive, but not impossible, to build - though I am not at all certain how to handle the connection to/from N.J. 55.

[Beltway]

I think the first priority ought to be connecting the Turnpike to NJ 42/Atlantic City Expressway.

I strongly agree.  That missing connection (in my opinion) qualifies as a breezewood.  In a sense, it's even worse than a breezewood, since there is no connection at all - rather like the (current) non-connection between I-95 and the E-W mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

There is a connection, albeit several miles via NJ-168.  A surface road...

[hbelkins]

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

You mean it's not 75 already? Every time I've driven it, it's been my experience that you'll get run over by faster traffic if you drive 75.

[cpzilliacus]

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

You mean it's not 75 already? Every time I've driven it, it's been my experience that you'll get run over by faster traffic if you drive 75.

The design speed was supposedly 80 MPH when the Turnpike was built.  So it should probably be higher now.

But officially, it is only 65 MPH.

And pretty strictly enforced, at least south of Exit 6 (this may be only because enforcement is much more visible on the (relatively-speaking narrow segment of the Turnpike).

[qguy]

They updated the routing of the missing moves on the PDF, but not the thumbnail graphic!

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt295/shortlist-alternatives_mapD.shtm

What was the big deal over cutting through the landfill? Either way, there were be a weaving problem on 42 between these new ramps and 55. That section of roadway is already a choke point.

I don't want to give too much away of what I actually know, but here's what I can tell you - the DOT can't take the landfill until it's capped. I don't know WHY that is, but rather than wait, they just took other property instead.

There was a similar problem with the US 6 freeway from Scranton, PA, to Carbondale (origianlly known as the Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway or LVIH, but changed to the Casey Highway upon completion, in honor of the late governor) when it was being built in the late 90s.

In the path of the initially planned alignment is a landfill. The alignment was ultimately shifted to the east. On a map or aerial image, you can see where the alignment "bulges" around the landfill between the I-81/84/380/US 6 interchange and the first exit on the US 6 freeway (at Marshwood Rd.).

I don't know about cheaper, but it was significantly easier to move the road than construct it through the landfill. The landfill would had to have been excavated and the refuse would had to have been relocated. This would've reqired an extensive, time-consuming, and costly permitting process. The entire headache was avoided by shifting the alignment. Fortunately, becasue of a lack of development in the immediate are, that was an option in this case.

[jeffandnicole]

As far as the missing moves are concerned, I don't think they're waiting until the 295/76/42 construction is finished.  That project's 1st (of 4) construction contracts is going out to bid soon, but the last contract won't finish construction until 2020.  I believe the missing moves project is supposed to go out to bid in FY2014, with construction finishing in 2016.

[jeffandnicole]

But officially, it is only 65 MPH.

And pretty strictly enforced, at least south of Exit 6 (this may be only because enforcement is much more visible on the (relatively-speaking narrow segment of the Turnpike).

I'm going to go with this is the most laughable post of the day. 

I'm not sure how often you ride the turnpike, where you may have heard this from or if this is just your opinion, but the 65 mph limit is most definitely not strictly enforced below Interchange 6.  I, along with regular and everyday users of the turnpike, will attest to that as well.

As far as enforcement is much more visible - yes, you are correct in that department.  And yes, it may cause some motorists to think that way.  But I can tell you first hand, many times, that they are not looking for people going just a minor bit over the speed limit.  In fact, the police you see many not even be looking for speeders!

[1995hoo]

The only place where I've routinely encountered speed limit enforcement on the New Jersey Turnpike over the years has been northbound at milepost 15.8. You crest a small hill and there's a sort of dirt driveway into the trees where the cop sits facing traffic running always-on X-band. I've seen cops there often enough that on a trip north a few years back when my brother was driving and we didn't have the detector with us I suggested he slow down and sure enough, there was the cop. The guy behind us was PISSED when we slowed and then afterwards drove up next to us with an apologetic look on his face.

I've been passed by cops on the Turnpike when I was doing 75 mph and that was in the days before they posted any 65-mph limits (early 1990s).

[agentsteel53]

what are the overtly visible cops looking for, then?  people with a particular vehicle description as reported previously, in possible connection with a recently committed crime?

[vdeane]

Or people texting while driving - that's what the NY state troopers are currently targeting at least.